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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the tool performs no UI action itself, returns step-by-step screens/buttons/fields, and there is no public Squire API, which explains why browser automation is required.

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 operational core (returns steps, opens nothing, follow with cotlet_browser_*) is front-loaded and useful, but the audience clause 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' and the dated provenance note 'checked 28 Oct 2026' consume space without helping an agent decide or act.

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, no-output-schema guide tool, the definition conveys what comes back (screens, buttons, fields) and what must follow it. The remaining gap is minor: no indication of how to handle a missing Squire browser session or what the step output actually looks like structurally.

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 and the schema is fully specified, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter meaning is missing.

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 concrete resource ('clients in the user's own Squire account') but immediately redefines the deliverable as 'how to do it in Squire step by step', so the tool does not itself list clients. That internal tension between the name/first clause and the actual return value leaves an agent uncertain whether it will receive client data or a procedure, and no sibling (e.g. cotlet_app_guide) is named to disambiguate.

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 downstream guidance: this tool 'opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools', which tells the agent the intended workflow. It also scopes to the user's own account/Squire Cloud Browser session, implying prerequisites, but never states what to do if no browser session exists or when to prefer cotlet_app_guide.

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