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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it returns procedural guidance rather than data, performs no mutation by itself, and discloses the API/Enterprise-plan constraint explaining why a browser tool is required. Minor gap: nothing about response shape beyond 'step by step'.

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 first two sentences are front-loaded and functional, but the closing sentence about AestheticsPro's Enterprise API pricing and a 'checked 11 Nov 2026' date is long and only indirectly relevant to selecting or invoking this 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?

For a zero-param, read-only tool with no output schema, the core mechanics are explained: what it returns and that a separate browser tool does the work. However, it never says what the response actually looks like or whether the UI steps are stable, and the API tangent consumes space that could have carried that.

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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing to clarify about inputs, and the description correctly implies no client identifier is needed because it returns general instructions.

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+resource ('View client contact details') and scopes it to the user's own AestheticsPro account, which distinguishes it from siblings like aestheticspro_export_contacts_to_constant_contact or aestheticspro_view_client_appointment_history. The addition that it returns step-by-step UI instructions rather than data is a clear, differentiating purpose statement.

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 says it 'opens nothing by itself' and that the actual action must be done with cotlet_browser_* tools afterwards, which is an unambiguous when-to-use/when-not split. It does not name which specific sibling browsing tool to pick, leaving that inference to the agent.

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