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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with "opens nothing by itself", which is useful confirmation. It also reveals the non-obvious behavior that the return value is a procedural guide (screens, buttons, fields) rather than data. It does not describe the shape or length of that guide, or any prerequisites for the browser session.

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 handoff (returns steps, then use cotlet_browser_*) is front-loaded, but "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" is filler and the trailing fragment "Timely's official API: Timely publishes no API docs" is grammatically awkward and partially redundant. Trimming those would sharpen the definition without losing 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?

With no parameters, no output schema and a simple read-only profile, the description covers what an agent needs: what it returns, that it performs no action itself, and which tool family to use next. Only the exact format of the returned steps is left unspecified, which is a minor gap.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the account scoping, which it does cover. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies; no additional parameter meaning is needed.

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 a specific verb and resource ("List clients in the user's own Timely account") and scopes it to the caller's own account, which separates it from a broader search. It also discloses that the tool returns step-by-step guidance rather than client records, which is important. The slight tension between the title "List clients" and the actual return (instructions) keeps it below a 5.

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?

Explicitly states the follow-up path: this tool gives the steps, then the agent should act using the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Timely Cloud Browser. The note that Timely publishes no API docs implicitly justifies the browser route. It stops short of naming when-not conditions or alternative Timely siblings.

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