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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: the tool performs no action itself, it returns UI-level navigation instructions, and there is no official Angi pros API (with a checked date). The main omission is what the returned guide looks like in shape or length and whether it varies per lead status.

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 behavior is front-loaded and the handoff to browser tools follows logically, but 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler and the trailing API note with a checked date is noisy. Sentences are long and compound where two or three short ones would read better.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover return values — it does so at a high level ('screens, buttons, fields') — but it never addresses the fact that a status-setting tool takes no lead identifier or status argument. For a tool whose whole purpose is setting a specific lead's status, that is a meaningful completeness gap.

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 the baseline is 4, but the description never explains how the target lead or desired status is conveyed given there is no input at all — an agent cannot tell whether those come from conversation context, the browser session, or nowhere. That ambiguity costs a point.

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 states a concrete resource (lead status in the user's Angi account) and clarifies that the tool is a how-to provider, not a mutator: 'Returns how to do it in Angi step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' This resolves the ambiguity created by the verb 'set' in the name and distinguishes it from the cotlet_browser_* siblings it hands off to.

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: get the steps here, then execute them with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Angi Cloud Browser. What is missing is routing against the other Angi siblings (e.g., when to reach for angi_list_leads first to identify a lead) and any precondition for calling this tool.

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