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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the non-obvious fact that the tool performs no action at all and only returns procedural steps — critical to prevent an agent from assuming it retrieves contact records. It also discloses the surrounding constraint (REST API exists with per-plan daily caps, no official MCP server), which justifies why browser automation is the execution path. It does not describe the shape of the returned steps in detail.

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 core routing information is stated early and clearly, but the opening clause ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') is promotional filler, and the API/date-checked sentence, while arguably relevant, is tangential to selecting and invoking the tool. It is not bloated to the point of harm, but a sentence of waste survives.

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, non-mutating guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (procedural steps), what it does not do (open anything), and what to do next. Missing only a note on the format or granularity of the returned steps, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter meaning for the description to compensate for, and the schema's empty object already communicates this fully.

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 name and title say 'list contacts', but the description reveals the tool actually returns step-by-step instructions rather than contact data ('Returns how to do it in Agile CRM step by step'). The real deliverable is disclosed, but only after a marketing-style opening sentence that restates the name, so the agent must read past a misleading surface reading to understand what the tool produces.

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 explicitly frames the workflow: this tool acquires guidance and 'opens nothing by itself', and the actual listing is then performed with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. That is concrete routing guidance. It stops short of when-not guidance (e.g., when cotlet_app_guide or cotlet_apps would be preferred instead), so not a 5.

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