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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, and the description reinforces this by stating it 'opens nothing by itself' and returns instructions only, which is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs. It also discloses the return shape (screens, buttons, fields). It stops short of prerequisites such as requiring an active Trengo Cloud 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 is front-loaded and clear, but the third sentence about Trengo's official REST API and the absence of an MCP server, complete with a verification date, is tangential justification rather than operational guidance. It adds bulk without changing how the agent invokes the tool.

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 zero parameters, no output schema and annotations present, the description carries what matters: that this is a guide-retrieval tool and which tools perform the actual action. Only session/auth preconditions and the private-vs-customer-visible distinction are 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 of 4 applies. The description does not wrongly imply inputs that do not exist.

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 action and resource (internal note in Trengo) and immediately clarifies that the tool returns step-by-step UI instructions rather than performing the action. It reasonably distinguishes itself from the cotlet_browser_* execution tools by naming them as the follow-up step, though it does not contrast with trengo_reply_to_customer or trengo_add_label.

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?

Gives a clear sequence: get the guide here, then execute with cotlet_browser_* tools, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. However, it never states the key selection criterion — that an internal note is private and differs from a customer-visible reply — so an agent choosing between this and trengo_reply_to_customer gets no help.

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