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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the crucial behavioral fact that the tool 'opens nothing by itself' and returns textual instructions rather than performing the action — this prevents an agent from believing a contact was created. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. It does not describe the shape or length of the returned steps, which would have completed the picture.

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 sentences (what it returns, what to do next) are well ordered and earn their place. The trailing sentence about Alegra's official REST API is unrelated to invoking this tool and carries a strange future-dated verification stamp ('checked 14 Oct 2026'), and 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler. Roughly a third of the text is 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, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (steps, screens, buttons, fields) and the required follow-up path. The only meaningful omission is any statement about preconditions, such as needing an authenticated Alegra session for the subsequent browser steps.

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 an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies: no parameter semantics are needed, and none are misleadingly implied.

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 description names the resource (contact in the user's Alegra account) and then corrects the naive reading of the name by stating it 'Returns how to do it in Alegra step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'. That makes the real function — returning procedural guidance — distinguishable from the actual mutation, which it routes to cotlet_browser_* tools. The opening phrasing 'Add contact' still momentarily implies a write, so it isn't perfectly front-loaded.

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 an explicit workflow: call this to get the steps, then perform them with cotlet_browser_* in the Alegra Cloud Browser. That is clear when-to-use plus the sequencing an agent needs. It does not say when NOT to use it (e.g., versus cotlet_app_guide or a direct API path), so it falls short of full alternative coverage.

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