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

Adds materially beyond the annotations by declaring that the tool opens nothing by itself and only returns guidance, which is the single most important behavioral fact for an agent that might otherwise assume a side effect. Combined with readOnlyHint/idempotentHint this is coherent. It omits whether any Angi login/Cloud Browser session is required before calling it.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded: what it does, what it returns and the follow-up path, then the API justification. The trailing API note is a bit tacked-on and the '28 Oct 2026' date is odd, but no sentence is filler.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description does the necessary work of explaining what comes back (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and how to act on it. The only gap is that an agent still cannot tell what the guide is scoped to, since the call takes no homeowner identifier.

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, but the description also fails to say that no inputs are accepted or what targeting information (e.g., which homeowner) the returned guide is for. Given there is nothing to disambiguate, the description neither helps nor hurts here.

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?

States a specific resource (a homeowner in Angi) and, crucially, clarifies that the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than sending anything itself. That distinction separates it from action siblings like angi_set_lead_status or angi_reply_to_review. It stops short of 5 because the name implies a messaging action and the description never says whether it also drafts message content.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow: call this first to get the screens/buttons/fields, then perform the steps with cotlet_browser_* tools in the Angi Cloud Browser. It also preempts the 'why not just use the API' path by noting Angi has no public pro API. It does not state when not to use it versus other Angi tools such as angi_list_leads.

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