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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: it returns a UI walkthrough (screens, buttons, fields), performs no action itself, and depends on a separate browser-tool family plus a cloud browser session. The note about Substack's limited official API explains why this exists, though the "checked 11 Oct 2026" date is unverifiable noise.

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 critical fact (it does not publish, it returns a guide) is buried mid-sentence after a misleading opening clause, so the structure works against the content. The filler "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" and the parenthetical API-check date add words without decision value.

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 tool the description covers what it returns and what the agent must do next, which is the main completeness risk here. It leaves slight ambiguity about whether the guide is tailored to the caller's specific publication or is generic, but otherwise nothing essential is missing.

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 with an empty schema at 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No meaningful parameter guidance 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 does disclose the real function ("Returns how to do it in Substack step by step ... and opens nothing by itself"), but it leads with "Publish Note in the user's own Substack account," which reads as a write action and only gets corrected in the following clause. It also fails to distinguish itself from the sibling tool literally named publish_note, so an agent scanning siblings cannot immediately tell which one actually publishes.

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 forward workflow: call this, then execute the returned steps with the cotlet_browser_* tools inside the user's Substack Cloud Browser. It gives no when-not guidance and never mentions the publish_note or create_draft siblings, so the agent has no rule for choosing between this instructional tool and a direct publish tool.

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