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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the description's job is to explain the output nature — and it does: the tool "opens nothing by itself" and returns a procedural walkthrough. That is a behavioral trait annotations cannot express and it prevents an agent from expecting a meeting list back. The trailing note about tl;dv's REST API and hosted MCP server being read-focused is tangential trivia that does not further inform invocation.

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 key facts — what it returns and which tools follow — are front-loaded in the first two sentences. The final sentence about tl;dv's public API version and a checked-on date is metadata that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool and dilutes the message.

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 whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations, the description supplies the two things that matter: the output is guidance rather than data, and the follow-up path is the browser tools. It could go further by stating prerequisites (e.g., whether the user must already be signed in to tl;dv) or what the guide covers, 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the baseline is 4. The statement that it "opens nothing by itself" is consistent with an empty schema, reinforcing that no targeting input is required.

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 names a specific resource and scope ("meetings in the user's own tl;dv account") and, crucially, clarifies that the tool returns step-by-step instructions ("screens, buttons, fields") rather than data. That clarification is what an agent needs, though the opening verb "List meetings" sits in tension with the actual returns-instructions behavior, creating a moment of ambiguity. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as cotlet_app_guide, 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 operating context: this tool only produces the procedure, and the actual work is then done with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the tl;dv Cloud Browser, which it names explicitly. That is genuine routing guidance rather than inference. It lacks any when-not-to-use clause or a pointer to the other guide-style sibling (cotlet_app_guide), which keeps it below a 5.

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