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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it opens nothing by itself, returns procedural instructions rather than data, and Sunsama lacks a documented public API (which explains the browser-driven workflow). This is real context beyond the structured fields, though it does not describe the shape or length of the returned guide.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and the follow-up browser step. The trailing API note is slightly repetitive in phrasing ('official API' / 'no documented public API') but earns its place by justifying the browser path.

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 is returned (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and the required downstream toolset. It stops short of saying how detailed or account-specific that guide is, which is the main residual ambiguity.

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 covered, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter discussion is needed or expected.

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 (weekly objectives in the user's own Sunsama account) and then corrects the expectation set by the name: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than the objective data itself. That correction is critical and present, though the tension between the tool name 'list_weekly_objectives' and its actual guide-returning behavior means an agent must read carefully to know it will not receive objective records.

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 pattern: call this to get screens/buttons/fields, then execute with cotlet_browser_* tools inside the user's Sunsama Cloud Browser. There is no explicit exclusion against the near-sibling cotlet_app_guide, so the agent is left to infer which guidance tool to prefer.

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