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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description is consistent with these and adds real context: nothing is opened by the tool, and the return value is step-by-step UI-level guidance. The note about no public Angi API explains why the browser route is required, which the annotations cannot convey. Minor gap: no mention of whether the returned steps vary by account or UI state.

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?

Behavior and workflow are front-loaded in the second sentence, which is the strongest part. However, the opening clause about ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent is marketing filler, and the closing dated claim ("checked 28 Oct 2026") adds an unverifiable timestamp that does not help an agent decide anything.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what is needed: what it returns, that it performs no side effects, and which tools to use next. It stops short of explaining what a lead credit is or eligibility rules, which would help an agent confirm the right tool was chosen.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description contradicts the empty schema.

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 second sentence makes the actual behavior explicit: it "Returns how to do it in Angi step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself," which distinguishes it from the action-oriented Angi siblings. The opening sentence ("Request lead credit in the user's own Angi account") is ambiguous and could be read as performing the action itself, but the following clause corrects that. An agent can determine it is an instruction-generator rather than a mutator, though only after reading past the first clause.

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?

The description defines the two-step workflow clearly: call this tool first, then execute with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Angi Cloud Browser, which names the concrete alternative surface. It also justifies the approach by noting Angi has no public pro API. It does not state when a lead credit is warranted versus other Angi actions, nor any exclusions.

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