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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical context beyond that: the tool returns generic instructions and 'opens nothing by itself', and the official API is read-focused. It would be stronger if it clarified whether the returned steps are personalized or generic.

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 description is somewhat verbose and meanders: the 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' clause adds little, and the API/MCP sentence is tangential. The key points (returns steps, does nothing itself, then use browser tools) are present but not crisply front-loaded.

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 guidance tool, the description covers the two-step workflow. However, it never explains that the returned steps are generic rather than specific to a particular meeting or folder, leaving a significant gap in understanding what the output will contain.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain any input parameters, and the schema confirms none are 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 clearly states it returns step-by-step instructions for adding a meeting to a folder and explicitly says it opens nothing by itself, distinguishing it from the action-performing cotlet_browser_* tools. However, the name and opening phrase 'Add meeting to folder' could mislead until the clarification later, so it's not perfectly front-loaded.

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 tells the agent to use this tool to get the how-to steps, then execute them with cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. It also notes that tl;dv's official API and MCP server are read-focused, implying there is no direct API shortcut. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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