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, and the description stays consistent while adding real context: no side effects occur, the output is a screen/button/field walkthrough, and actual mutation requires separate browser tools. It adds little on failure modes or freshness of the instructions.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the key caveat ("opens nothing by itself") appears early, but the final sentence is a run-on that merges an API claim with a dated audit note and a parenthetical "checked 27 Oct 2026" that does not help an agent decide or invoke. Two clauses could be dropped without loss.

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, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and what to do next (cotlet_browser_* tools). What remains unsaid — instruction granularity, staleness, failure cases — is minor at this complexity.

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 and there is no parameter meaning the description could usefully add. It correctly gives no parameter discussion rather than inventing any.

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 pairs a specific verb and resource ("Send owner report") with an explicit clarification of what the tool actually does: returns step-by-step Yardi instructions and "opens nothing by itself." That resolves the tension between the name and the behavior, though an agent must read the whole description to learn the tool is a guide rather than an executor.

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?

Clear workflow context: call this to get the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Yardi Cloud Browser. It does not name when to prefer the sibling cotlet_app_guide or when this tool would be the wrong choice, so there are no explicit exclusions.

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