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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation would otherwise look odd against a 'create' name, but the description explicitly explains that the tool only returns instructions and 'opens nothing by itself', reconciling the annotation with the name. It adds further context beyond annotations — the return content (screens, buttons, fields) and the fact that no public REST API or webhooks exist, which justifies the browser-tool workflow.

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 — returns instructions, executes nothing, use browser tools next — are front-loaded in the first two sentences. The closing API sentence is slightly redundant in wording ('Ubersuggest's official API: Ubersuggest has no public REST API') but still earns its place by explaining the browser-based design.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it explains what is returned, that no side effects occur, and how to complete the task with browser tools. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly appears to be 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 and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4; nothing in the description needs to compensate for undocumented inputs. The description adds the useful note that project details are supplied later through the browser tools rather than as arguments here.

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 verb and resource (create a project in the user's Ubersuggest account) and then immediately disambiguates the surprising part: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. It also names the downstream tools (cotlet_browser_*) needed to actually execute, so an agent can tell what this tool does and does not do without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is clear: call this to get the procedure, then carry it out with cotlet_browser_* in the Ubersuggest Cloud Browser. It implicitly excludes direct execution ('opens nothing by itself') but never names sibling alternatives such as ubersuggest_list_projects for checking existing projects, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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