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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real context beyond them by stating it 'opens nothing by itself' and that Toast's self-service API access is read-only. What it does not cover is whether the returned steps are version- or plan-specific, or that a browser session must exist first.

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 fact (it returns steps, not data, and acts on nothing) is buried mid-sentence in a semicolon-joined clause. Phrases like 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' and the dated API audit note ('checked 28 Oct 2026') add marketing and provenance noise without helping an agent decide or invoke.

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 and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so in concrete terms (screens, buttons, fields) plus the required follow-up toolset. It stops short of describing the shape or length of that guidance, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 no parameters and the schema is fully described, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies, with no evidence the description misrepresents the input 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 description does name the specific resource (sales summary in the user's Toast account) and, crucially, discloses that the tool returns step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields) rather than the data itself, which distinguishes it from the cotlet_browser_* tools it hands off to. The lingering tension between the name 'get sales summary' and the actual guide-returning behavior keeps it from 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 two-step workflow: call this to get the procedure, then execute it with cotlet_browser_* in the user's Toast Cloud Browser. It does not compare against other plausible siblings such as cotlet_app_guide or the toast_* API-backed tools, so the agent gets a positive path but no exclusions.

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