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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds genuinely new context: 'opens nothing by itself' and that the work must be completed via browser tools, plus the note that Weezevent's REST API only reads tickets/attendees. That explains why a browser-driven guide exists, which annotations alone cannot convey.

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 (this returns instructions, not an action) is buried in the second sentence rather than front-loaded, and the 'ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' clause plus the oddly specific 'checked 31 Oct 2026' parenthetical add noise. The content is relevant but could be tightened to lead with the guide-return behavior.

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 description must explain the return value and next step, and it does: step-by-step screens, buttons, and fields, followed by browser-tool execution. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though it does not state that the returned guide is account/order-specific or what happens if the order is already paid.

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 baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required, and the empty schema with additionalProperties=false matches that.

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 verb and resource (mark an order paid in Weezevent) and then clarifies the tool's real function: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. It distinguishes itself from the cotlet_browser_* siblings by positioning them as the follow-up executors, though the opening sentence could mislead an agent into thinking the tool mutates state.

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 says what to do after calling ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Weezevent Cloud Browser'), which is useful routing. But it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to other order tools (list_orders, resend_order, request_refund) and no prerequisites for the call itself.

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