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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: the call returns a textual walkthrough rather than performing the text, and nothing is opened on the user's behalf. The note about Yardi's lack of a self-serve API explains why this route exists.

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?

Three dense sentences with the key fact (it returns steps, it does not act) placed early. The trailing API note is slightly tangential but justifies the tool's existence, so it mostly earns its place.

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 convey the return payload, and it does so concretely (screens, buttons, fields). It also tells the agent what to do next via the browser tools. Only a precise output shape would add more.

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 and the schema confirms additionalProperties is false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 states a specific resource and deliverable: 'Returns how to do it in Yardi step by step (screens, buttons, fields).' It resolves the mismatch between the action-oriented name 'yardi_text_tenant' and the actual behavior by explicitly saying it 'opens nothing by itself.' It is clear enough to distinguish from the cotlet_browser_* execution tools, though the name still implies an action.

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 instructions, then complete the task with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Yardi Cloud Browser. It does not name exclusions or explain when a sibling like cotlet_app_guide would be preferable, which keeps it 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.