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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, and the description is consistent with them by stating no browser action occurs. It adds useful context beyond annotations: the API-access constraint (keys only via email to api@virtuagym.com with a GitHub username), which explains why browser-based execution is required. The 'checked 9 Nov 2026' date is extraneous but harmless.

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 handoff to cotlet_browser_* are front-loaded in the first sentence. The trailing API/email quote is longer than needed and contains a quasi-date reference, but it is relevant rationale and does not bury the main instruction.

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 schema, no output schema, and rich annotations, the definition covers what the agent needs: what is returned, what is not done, and which tools complete the task. The remaining gap is the mismatch between the 'list classes' name and the guidance-only behavior, which an agent could misread as a data-retrieval tool.

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 the schema baseline of 4 applies. No parameter semantics are needed or missing, and the description correctly implies the tool is parameterless by scoping to 'the user's own Virtuagym account'.

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 behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields) for listing classes in the user's Virtuagym account, and explicitly says it 'opens nothing by itself'. This distinguishes it from the cotlet_browser_* action tools. The only weakness is that the name/title says 'List classes' while the tool actually returns a how-to guide, which the description never reconciles.

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 sequencing rule: call this first for guidance, 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Virtuagym Cloud Browser'. It does not compare against the generic cotlet_app_guide sibling, so an agent must infer which guidance source to prefer, but the primary workflow guidance is unambiguous.

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