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

With readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive already declared, the description adds the key behavioral fact: it opens nothing by itself and returns a textual how-to. It also dates its API claim, which helps the agent judge freshness. It does not say how stable or account-specific that guidance is beyond the 'user's own account' note.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the 'opens nothing by itself' caveat, then the execution route, then the API context. It is dense and slightly run-on, but every sentence contributes distinct 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by specifying step-by-step screens/buttons/fields. Combined with the empty input schema and safety annotations, an agent has what it needs to call it correctly; only the exact scope of the returned guidance is left slightly open.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema is empty and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed because nothing is acted upon. No parameter meaning is left ambiguous.

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 resource (a Zoopla listing in the user's own account) and, crucially, clarifies that the tool does not perform the update itself but returns step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields). That distinction separates it from the cotlet_browser_* siblings, though the opening 'Update listing...' phrasing briefly reads as a mutation tool before being corrected.

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 explicitly routes execution to the cotlet_browser_* tools after calling this one ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools'), which is concrete when-to-use guidance. It offers no exclusion against the more generic cotlet_app_guide sibling, so the alternative-routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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