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, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds meaningful behavior: it explains that nothing is opened or changed, that the output is a step-by-step walkthrough of screens, buttons and fields, and that the real action must be taken through browser tools. The note that 17hats publishes no public API explains why this guidance-based pattern 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the task and its non-action caveat, with the browser-tool handoff before the trailing API note. The final clause ("17hats's official API: 17hats publishes no public API") is awkwardly phrased and marginally redundant, but the whole text is short and earns most of its space.

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, and the description compensates by saying the return value is a step-by-step procedure describing screens, buttons and fields. Combined with the annotations and the explicit handoff to cotlet_browser_* tools, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though it does not state what happens if the app's UI differs from the returned steps.

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 parameter-semantics baseline is 4; there is nothing further the description could add here.

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 concrete task (add a contact in the user's 17hats account) and then immediately clarifies the actual behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action ("opens nothing by itself"). That distinguishes it from the cotlet_browser_* tools that do the clicking, though the leading phrasing "Add contact in the user's own 17hats account" initially frames it as an action, which slightly blurs the boundary.

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 clear sequencing guidance — first call this to get the steps, then execute them with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Cloud Browser — and rules out the assumption that it performs anything. It does not address when another 17hats-family tool (e.g. a create-project sibling) would be the better starting point, so the guidance is solid but not exhaustive.

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