Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the key non-obvious trait: it 'opens nothing by itself' and returns procedural guidance instead of data, and that the target account is the user's own. The trailing API aside about 'scheduling' introduces a topic unrelated to listing inspections, slightly muddying the behavioral picture.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core workflow is front-loaded and clear, but the opening clause naming ChatGPT/Claude/any AI agent is filler, and the final sentence about Spectora's API and scheduling (with a future-dated 'checked' stamp) is tangential to listing inspections and consumes a third of the text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless, non-destructive guide tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what it returns (screens, buttons, fields), that it performs no action, and which tools carry out the task. The API/scheduling aside is extra information that does not compensate for any real gap but also does not harm completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless schema applies. No misleading parameter information is present.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource and, crucially, corrects the expectation set by the name: the tool 'Returns how to do it in Spectora step by step' rather than inspection records. It distinguishes itself from the browser tools by saying the actual work is done 'with the cotlet_browser_* tools'. It does not distinguish itself from sibling readers such as spectora_get_inspection, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear workflow context: call this first to get the screens/buttons/fields, then execute with cotlet_browser_* in the user's Cloud Browser. There are no explicit exclusions or comparisons against other spectora_* siblings, which keeps it out of the top band.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.