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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds behavior beyond that: it opens nothing by itself, and it returns procedural content (screens, buttons, fields) rather than data. The plan/API caveat is useful context for why a browser route is used. It does not cover what happens if the user is not logged in or how the steps are scoped to a specific account.

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 instruction and the browser hand-off are front-loaded and earn their place, but "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" is filler that adds no operator value. The API sentence is useful but reads as an appended footnote rather than integrated rationale.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it does: step-by-step screens, buttons, and fields. Combined with the explicit next-step tools, an agent has enough to act. Gaps are minor, such as whether the returned steps depend on the account's plan or current session state.

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, which is the baseline 4 case. The absence of parameters is consistent with a guide-returning tool; no argument ordering or defaults need explaining.

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 names a specific resource (queued posts in the user's own Sprout Social account) and clarifies the crucial twist: the tool does not fetch posts, it returns step-by-step instructions on how to see them. The name/title ("List queued posts") suggests a data-returning call, so the correction comes slightly late, but once read the purpose is unambiguous.

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 an explicit workflow: call this to get the steps, then perform them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Sprout Social Cloud Browser. It also explains why the official REST API is not the route (Advanced plan and above, read-heavy), which rules out an alternative path. It does not say when to prefer this over sibling sprout_social_* tools, but it does route to the correct execution family.

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