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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, and the description honors them by stressing it 'opens nothing by itself'. It adds real value beyond the annotations: what the return value looks like (screens, buttons, fields) and why a browser path is required (no public API, custom Enterprise work only). The dated vendor-pricing aside is informative but reads more like justification than operational behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its non-executing nature, then the follow-up path. The final API/pricing sentence is long and only tangentially helps invocation, slightly diluting an otherwise tight two-sentence core.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema guidance tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, that it performs no action, which tools carry out the actual work, and why a direct API route is unavailable. No material gap remains.

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 empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies all context (account, task) comes from the session rather than arguments.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Segment leads') scoped to 'the user's own AestheticsPro account', and immediately distinguishes itself from both an executor and from data-read siblings by saying it 'returns how to do it in AestheticsPro step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself'. An agent can tell this is a how-to/guidance tool, not an action tool, without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this to get the procedure, then 'do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's AestheticsPro Cloud Browser'. That is a clear use-then-alternative instruction. It stops short of naming which lead-related siblings (e.g. search or create lead tools) to use for adjacent tasks, so no explicit when-not guidance.

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