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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description goes further by stating explicitly that it "opens nothing by itself" and that it returns screen/button/field-level instructions rather than data. It also discloses that Angi has no public API for pros, which explains why a guided browser path is required – real context beyond the annotations.

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 disclosure (returns instructions, opens nothing, execute via cotlet_browser_*) is packed into one overloaded sentence. The phrase "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" and the API-check aside add length without helping selection, and the opening verb undercuts the clarification that follows.

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, no-output-schema tool the description covers the essentials: what it returns, that it performs no action, and which tools to use afterward. However, it never sketches the shape of the returned guidance (e.g., whether it is prose, numbered steps, or per-screen checks) or notes what the user must already have configured in the Cloud Browser, leaving an agent guessing about follow-up flow.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is no parameter meaning left to convey, so the baseline applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call, and no parameter information is missing or misleading.

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 lead-listing action, but the description says the tool "Returns how to do it in Angi step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself" – it is really a guidance tool. The actual behavior is eventually stated, but the verb/resource framing conflicts with it, so an agent must read past the first clause to learn what it truly does.

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 route the agent onward to the cotlet_browser_* tools for execution, which is genuinely useful sequencing. But it never distinguishes itself from siblings such as cotlet_app_guide (likely the general-purpose guide) or angi_set_lead_status / angi_request_lead_credit, which operate on leads and would be the natural next steps after listing them.

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