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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description reinforces this with the non-obvious promise that it 'opens nothing by itself', preventing the agent from assuming a side effect. It also adds vendor context (no public API; custom API only on a $350/month Enterprise plan) that explains why a browser-based procedure is returned instead of an API call.

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 operative information (returns a step-by-step guide, opens nothing, follow up with cotlet_browser_* tools) is front-loaded and clear. The closing sentence about AestheticsPro's Enterprise-only custom API and absent public docs is long, date-stamped, and largely generic vendor background that does not help an agent invoke this particular tool.

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 inputs and no output schema, the definition still communicates the return shape at a high level (screens, buttons, fields) and explicitly rules out side effects, which is what an agent needs before calling. It could go slightly further on how to consume the returned steps, but nothing essential is missing.

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 is fully covered, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 ('Assign lead in the user's own AestheticsPro account') and then clarifies the crucial nuance that the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the assignment. It does not differentiate from sibling write tools such as aestheticspro_create_lead or read tools such as aestheticspro_view_lead_list, so an agent must infer 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 a follow-on workflow ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's AestheticsPro Cloud Browser'), which tells the agent how to complete the task after calling. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over aestheticspro_create_lead or the viewing tools, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than exclusive.

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