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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add what annotations can't. It does exactly that: this 'search' tool returns step-by-step UI instructions and performs no action itself, which is a genuinely counterintuitive behavior an agent would otherwise get wrong. The note about AestheticsPro's lack of a public API further explains why the browser path is required.

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 opening two sentences are tight and front-loaded with the key constraint. The closing API paragraph is disproportionately long, citing plan pricing, a contact arrangement and a verification date, which is background justification rather than operational guidance. It earns partial credit for explaining the browser dependency but could be one short clause.

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 output schema, the description must say what comes back, and it does: step-by-step screens, buttons and fields. Combined with the read-only annotations and the explicit hand-off to cotlet_browser_* tools, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. Only the absence of alternatives routing keeps it from a 5.

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 and the description has nothing parameter-related to compensate for. It correctly avoids inventing query fields.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Search clients in ... AestheticsPro account'), which separates it from the sibling lead-search tool. It also clarifies the resource is the user's own account rather than a shared or public directory. A slight gap: it never names aestheticspro_search_leads as the contrast point.

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 an explicit next step -- 'opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools' -- so an agent knows how to chain this into an actual search. What's missing is when-not-to-use guidance, such as pointing at aestheticspro_search_leads for leads or naming prerequisites for the Cloud Browser session.

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