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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-open-world, so the safety bar is low; the description adds the meaningful behavior that it returns instructions rather than executing, and that it targets the user's own account through the Cloud Browser. The trailing API/OAuth2 note is background context rather than behavior an agent needs to invoke it.

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 routing guidance is front-loaded and useful, but the final sentence about the kappa v2 REST API, OAuth2 flow and the dated no-MCP-server check is tangential metadata that neither helps select nor invoke the tool. "Screens, buttons, fields" partly restates "step by step."

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-param, no-output-schema guidance tool, this covers what it returns, that it is non-destructive and self-contained, and what to do next. What remains unclear is whether the returned steps are live, account-specific, or generic static instructions.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline applies; the description correctly implies no input is required and there is no schema gap to compensate for.

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 the tool returns step-by-step instructions for reviewing tips and that it performs no action itself, which is a real distinction. But "review tips" is not pinned down — tip history, pending tips, payout settings, or something else — and compared with concrete siblings like streamelements_adjust_loyalty_points, the resource scope stays fuzzy.

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 split: this tool explains how to do it (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing, then you act with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. It does not compare against cotlet_app_guide or say when a guide lookup is warranted versus going straight to the browser.

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