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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that by stating it 'opens nothing by itself'. It adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: the return is step-by-step screens/buttons/fields guidance, and execution happens elsewhere via cotlet_browser_* tools. It does not describe the exact shape of the returned guide, and the trailing API paragraph adds no behavioral value.

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 first two sentences are well front-loaded and earn their place. The third sentence is a rambling digression listing Supermove API endpoints ('New Lead endpoint, a Standard Website endpoint, Add Survey and Update Project') plus a dated verification note ('checked 28 Oct 2026') that gives the agent no actionable selection or invocation information.

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 the essentials: what it returns, that it performs no action, and which tools carry out the actual work. Annotations cover the safety profile. It would be stronger if it stated what to do with the returned steps or noted prerequisites such as an active Supermove Cloud Browser session.

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 (schema coverage 100%), so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter talk and instead spends its words on the return contract.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Open project in the user's own Supermove account'), and the second immediately corrects the biggest possible misreading: it 'opens nothing by itself' and instead 'Returns how to do it in Supermove step by step'. That is a clear, distinctive purpose an agent can separate from the sibling action tools. The closing paragraph about Supermove's Developer API endpoints muddies rather than sharpens the purpose.

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 explicitly routes the agent onward: 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Supermove Cloud Browser', which tells the agent this is a planning/instructions step in a two-step flow. What's missing is any explicit when-not guidance, e.g. how this relates to supermove_list_projects or when a plain API-based tool would be preferred.

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