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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with "opens nothing by itself," which is exactly the caveat an agent needs to avoid assuming a side effect occurred. It also describes the return content (screens, buttons, fields). It does not specify output format or whether the steps are macro-specific or generic.

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 operational content is front-loaded and clear, but the closing sentence about Zammad's REST API and the absence of an official MCP server (with a dated check) is context padding that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. Removing it would tighten the definition without losing any invocation-relevant information.

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 parameterless, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, that it has no side effects, and what to do next. The remaining gap is that the actual shape of the returned instructions is only loosely characterized.

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 is 4, but the description leaves a genuine ambiguity: a tool called 'run macro' accepts no macro identifier, and nothing explains whether it returns generic Zammad macro guidance or something user-specific. That gap is worth flagging even though there are no parameters to document.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Run macro in the user's own Zammad account") and immediately clarifies that it returns step-by-step instructions rather than executing anything. That clarification is essential because the name 'run_macro' would otherwise suggest execution. It stops short of distinguishing itself from execution-oriented siblings such as zammad_update_ticket.

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 states the workflow explicitly: call this to get the Zammad steps, then perform them with the cotlet_browser_* tools. That is real routing guidance an agent can act on. There is no explicit 'when not to use' — for example, whether the other zammad_* tools execute directly without needing a browser.

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