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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description is consistent and adds real value beyond them by stating the tool performs no action, opens no browser, and requires a follow-up browser-driven step. The closing note about Aircall's official API only contributes context, and it doesn't contradict the readOnly annotation.

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 two-sentence workflow (returns steps, then use cotlet_browser_*) is front-loaded and useful, but the final sentence about Aircall's public REST API and beta MCP server is filler that doesn't help an agent decide or invoke the tool. The parenthetical date also adds noise.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what matters: the return value is a step-by-step guide, it performs no side effects, and the browser tools complete the action. Only the missing guidance on when not to use it keeps it from being fully complete.

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. No parameter meanings need explaining, and the description correctly implies there is nothing to supply.

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 'Create contact', but the description reveals the tool does not create anything – it 'Returns how to do it in Aircall step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself'. That clarification is present, but the leading verb misleads until the second sentence, and nothing distinguishes it from related siblings such as aircall_search_contacts or cotlet_app_guide.

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 concrete sequencing guidance: call this first, then execute the steps with cotlet_browser_* in the user's Aircall Cloud Browser. It does not state when to avoid this tool, nor when to prefer alternatives like cotlet_app_guide or the official API/MCP server it mentions.

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