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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the most consequential behavior: the tool takes no action in the account, returns procedural instructions (screens, buttons, fields), and requires a separate browser toolset to execute. It also explains the external constraint (no public API or self-serve key), which an agent needs in order to plan correctly.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and its limitation, followed by the execution path and the API justification. The pricing/Enterprise-plan detail is more granular than strictly needed for tool selection, but it earns its place by explaining why the browser route is mandatory.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does: step-by-step UI instructions. It also explains the downstream execution path. Minor gap: it does not indicate how granular or formatted that procedural output is, or whether it covers lead filtering criteria.

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, which is the baseline for a 4. The description is consistent with a no-input tool and implies the account context is implicit ('the user's own AestheticsPro account'), but it does not clarify whether any filtering criteria (lead status, date, source) are conveyed some other way.

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 (search leads) and explicitly corrects the naive reading by stating it 'Returns how to do it in AestheticsPro step by step... and opens nothing by itself.' That reframing is clear, though the opening phrase 'Search leads... from ChatGPT' momentarily reinforces the misleading impression that the tool performs the search. No sibling (e.g. search_clients) is named, so differentiation relies on the resource noun alone.

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 concrete follow-up path: use the 'cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's AestheticsPro Cloud Browser' to actually carry out the search. It also implies why this route exists (no public API). It does not state when NOT to use this tool or contrast it with adjacent siblings like segment_leads or search_clients, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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