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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description earns credit by explaining why those hold: it 'opens nothing by itself' and returns instructions only, so no state changes occur. The note that Weezevent's official REST API is read-only and partner-restricted adds real context for why browser automation is the path. It loses a point for not saying what the returned steps look like beyond 'screens, buttons, fields' or whether the guidance is exhaustive for all discount-code types.

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 two clauses (what it returns, what it does not do, and which tools to use next) are front-loaded and useful. The trailing sentence about Weezevent's official API is tangential and reads like justification rather than instruction, and the '(checked 31 Oct 2026)' stamp is odd detail that adds noise. Trimming that sentence would sharpen the definition.

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, no output schema, and safety fully covered by annotations, the description supplies what is missing: the tool's real nature (a guidance generator, not a mutator) and the follow-up tool family. The main gap is the handoff to cotlet_app_guide, which is not addressed despite being the closest ambiguous sibling.

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, so the baseline is 4 and the description does not need to document any inputs. It correctly implies the call is context-free apart from the user's account and session. Nothing in the description over-promises parameter behavior.

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 names a specific resource (discount codes in Weezevent) and immediately clarifies the crucial nuance the title obscures: the tool does not create anything, it returns step-by-step instructions for doing so. That distinction is what saves it from being a misleading verb+resource claim. It stops short of a 5 because the name/title still says 'Create', and the agent has to read into the second sentence to learn the tool is actually a guide.

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 an explicit workflow: call this first to get the steps, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Weezevent Cloud Browser. That is clear when-to-use guidance tied to named siblings. It does not, however, distinguish this from cotlet_app_guide, which by its name could also supply app guidance, so the alternative comparison is incomplete.

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