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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world; the description reinforces this with "opens nothing by itself," which is the key behavioral fact an agent needs before calling. It also pre-empts the obvious question of why not use the official API by noting that Weezevent's REST API only covers tickets and attendees for registered partners. It does not describe the shape or length of the returned guide.

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 routing information (returns a how-to, then use cotlet_browser_* tools) is front-loaded and useful, but "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" is filler, and the closing API paragraph, while justifiable, is longer than needed and includes a date stamp that adds bulk.

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 and no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs: what the tool returns, that it performs no external action, and which tool family to use next. A brief note on what the returned steps look like or when the flow could fail would make it complete.

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. No misleading invocation hints are given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List events in the user's own Weezevent account") and clarifies the unconventional nature of the tool: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than the event data itself. The distinction from siblings like weezevent_list_attendees or weezevent_list_orders is implied by resource scope, but not called out explicitly.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent the next step: "then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Weezevent Cloud Browser." That is real routing guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool (e.g., versus a direct API path or another Weezevent sibling), so it falls short of a 5.

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