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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself', which is exactly the clarification an agent needs given the mutating-sounding name. It also explains why screens and fields are returned instead of a result. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned guidance or failure modes.

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 sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the closing paragraph about Supermove's Developer API endpoints and the 'checked 28 Oct 2026' note is long, tangential, and interrupts the flow. It weakly supports why browser automation is needed but is disproportionately verbose.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of saying what comes back (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields). For a read-only guidance tool with zero parameters, that covers what an agent needs before calling, aside from session prerequisites.

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 the schema leaves nothing to explain; the description correctly implies no inputs are needed. Baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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?

Names the specific resource (crew assignment in Supermove) and then clarifies the surprising part: it 'returns how to do it step by step' rather than performing the action. That distinguishes it from an action tool, though the name 'assign_crew' alone would mislead without this sentence.

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?

Tells the agent how to follow up ('do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Supermove Cloud Browser'), which is genuinely useful sequencing. It does not say when to prefer this over siblings like cotlet_app_guide or supermove_assign_trucks, nor any preconditions such as needing an open browser session.

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