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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that it performs no action itself and hands off to browser tools, but it never says what the response actually contains beyond 'step by step', and the trailing note about Aircall's REST API and beta MCP server is unrelated to this tool's behavior.

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 front-loaded claim ('Search contacts') is immediately contradicted by the second clause, and the text pads out with marketing framing ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') and an API-availability aside with a checked date. The key fact — it returns instructions, not contacts — is buried mid-sentence.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description does the one thing that matters: it discloses that the return is a step-by-step procedure rather than contact records, and names the tools to use next. It would be a 5 if that disclosure were stated plainly up front instead of contradicting the tool's title.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain and the schema is fully specified. Baseline 4 applies; nothing in the description is needed here, though the absence of any search terms also reinforces the ambiguity about whether a search actually occurs.

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 promise a contact search, but the body says it 'Returns how to do it in Aircall step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself' — i.e., it returns procedural guidance, not contacts. An agent cannot tell whether this retrieves data or instructions, and the sibling relation to aircall_create_contact / cotlet_app_guide is left unresolved.

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 does state a follow-up path ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Aircall Cloud Browser'), which is real sequencing guidance. But there is no statement of when to choose this over cotlet_app_guide or the native aircall_* tools, and no explicit exclusions.

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