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

The description agrees with and enriches the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by stating plainly that the tool "opens nothing by itself" and only returns instructions, so the agent knows there are no side effects. It also discloses the auth/account scope ("the user's own Yardi account") and the external-API limitation. Remaining gap: it doesn't say what the returned step list looks like or how long it is.

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 key constraint (returns steps, opens nothing) is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the routing to cotlet_browser_* follows immediately. The closing note about Yardi's API is dense and the parenthetical date is noise, but the whole thing is three sentences with no filler.

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, no-output-schema advisory tool the description covers the essentials: what it returns, that it is side-effect free, and which tools do the actual work. The missing piece is how the specific work order is conveyed to the tool given no input parameters, which an agent would need to know before calling.

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?

With zero parameters the baseline applies, and there is no schema semantics to add meaning beyond. The one semantic question this tool raises is how the target work order is identified when nothing is passed, and the description is silent on that, which keeps it from a higher mark.

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 the resource (a work order in the user's Yardi account) and corrects the misleading verb by saying it "Returns how to do it in Yardi step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself." That distinguishes it from the actual browser siblings (cotlet_browser_*) it routes to. It falls short of 5 because the name says "update" while the tool only produces instructions, and the description never names yardi_create_work_order as the counterpart for a different operation.

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 explicit sequencing: get the steps here, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Yardi Cloud Browser. It also explains why no direct API path exists for Breeze, which preempts the agent looking for one. It does not say when to prefer this over yardi_create_work_order or what to do if the work order does not exist.

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