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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: it opens nothing by itself, it returns step-by-step UI instructions, and Wanderlog has no public API, which explains why a browser-driven approach is required. It does not describe the format or length of the returned instructions, so it is additive but not rich.

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 critical fact — that this only returns instructions and performs no action — is front-loaded in the first two sentences, with the API rationale last. Some phrasing is expendable ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent', the dated API check), but nothing misleads or buries the key point.

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 guide tool, the description covers what it returns, what it does not do, and how to follow up with the browser tools. The main gap is how its output differs from cotlet_app_guide's, which matters given that sibling exists in the same list.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing in the input schema whose meaning needs supplementing. The description does not introduce any parameters implicitly, so no confusion arises.

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 makes clear that despite the name 'add_place', the tool does not add anything itself: it 'Returns how to do it in Wanderlog step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' That resolves the verb/resource ambiguity and lets an agent distinguish it from the cotlet_browser_* action tools. It falls short of a 5 only because the relationship to the sibling cotlet_app_guide is never stated.

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 steps, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Wanderlog Cloud Browser. What's missing is an explicit exclusion — when to prefer cotlet_app_guide or wanderlog_create_trip instead, and whether this applies only to the user's own account (which it implies but never contrasts with alternatives).

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