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 safety is covered; the description usefully explains why that is true ("opens nothing by itself"). It also discloses the environment dependency — execution requires the AccuLynx Cloud Browser — and that the response is a step-by-step procedure. The API availability note adds background but not invocation-critical behavior.

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 core two sentences (what it returns, then use browser tools) are well front-loaded and earn their place. The trailing sentence about the AccuLynx REST API v2, AppConnections add-on and administrator-created API keys is lengthy context that does not help an agent select or invoke this zero-parameter tool, so it dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

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 what comes back, and it does: a step-by-step procedure with screens, buttons and fields. It also names the follow-up tool family. The only gap is that it does not describe the shape of the returned guide (e.g. ordering, granularity) beyond the parenthetical.

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 coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter information is missing or contradicted.

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 verb and resource ("Add contact in the user's own AccuLynx account") and then clarifies the actual mechanism: it "Returns how to do it in AccuLynx step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself." That clarification is essential because the name reads like a write action; without it the purpose would be misread. It stops short of 5 only because the leading sentence still frames it as adding a contact before revealing it is a guidance tool.

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 usage path: call this for the procedure, "then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's AccuLynx Cloud Browser." That routes the agent to the correct sibling family for execution. It does not name when to prefer an alternative (e.g. an official-API path) as an actionable option, only noting the API's existence as context.

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