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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself', so an agent knows there are no side effects. It adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond the annotations: the follow-up must happen through cotlet_browser_* in a Cloud Browser session, and the official REST API is gated to Advanced plan and above with a read-heavy bias. Return shape beyond 'screens, buttons, fields' is not described, keeping it at a 4.

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 behavior and the browser hand-off are front-loaded and useful, but the opening 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler, and the trailing API-plan note with a checked date is tangential to invoking this specific tool. The long run-on sentence structure makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 zero-parameter, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, that it performs no action, and what the caller must do next. The one gap is that it does not say what a caller should do if the user's plan or browser session is unavailable.

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; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by framing the call as a pure instruction lookup.

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 makes the actual behavior explicit: it 'Returns how to do it in Sprout Social step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself', which corrects the misleading 'Get post performance' name. An agent learns this is a guide-producing tool, not a data-retrieval call. It stops short of naming which sibling to use when, which is why it is a 4 rather than 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 a clear usage chain: call this first for the step-by-step, then 'do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Sprout Social Cloud Browser'. That names the alternative tool family and the ordering. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of the other sprout_social_* siblings.

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