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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context: it opens nothing by itself, it returns a procedural guide, and the official REST/MCP surfaces are read-focused, explaining why a guidance tool is needed. The stray 'checked 17 Oct 2026' detail adds noise more than assurance.

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?

Core behavior and the crucial 'opens nothing by itself' caveat are front-loaded and concise. The trailing sentence about tl;dv's official API is partly tangential and the date stamp reads as clutter, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what comes back (screens, buttons, fields) and how to act on it via the browser tools. It could say more about the format or coverage of the returned steps, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies no inputs are required to obtain the instructions.

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 states a specific outcome (step-by-step instructions for adding a note in tl;dv) and crucially clarifies that the tool returns guidance rather than performing the write, resolving the mismatch between the name 'add_note' and the actual behavior. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the other tldv_* siblings, so it falls short of 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?

It gives a clear usage path: call this to get the instructions, then execute with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's tl;dv Cloud Browser. It does not state when this tool should be avoided (e.g., if a direct write path exists) or name other tldv_* alternatives, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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