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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them via 'opens nothing by itself'. Beyond that, it adds genuine context: the return is step-by-step screens/buttons/fields, no Arborgold API/webhooks/Zapier exist (with a check date), so browser automation is required. It stops short of saying what the response looks like structurally or whether it includes any customer records.

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, no filler words, but the structure is back-loaded: the crucial fact that this tool returns instructions rather than data arrives only in sentence two. The final sentence about QuickBooks/Google/Twilio/SiteOne integrations plus a 'checked 9 Nov 2026' date is tangential to selecting or invoking the tool and arguably doesn't earn its place.

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 guide tool with no output schema, the essentials are present: what it returns and what to do next. However, it never clarifies whether any customer data comes back at all versus pure UI instructions, and it omits how the guide pairs with cotlet_browser_read to actually obtain the list. That leaves a meaningful gap for an agent executing the task end to end.

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 nothing needs explaining and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed. Nothing in the description adds or obscures parameter meaning.

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 first sentence says the tool 'List customers in the user's own Arborgold account', but the second reveals it actually 'Returns how to do it in Arborgold step by step ... and opens nothing by itself'. The real function (retrieve a how-to playbook, not customer data) is only disclosed after the misleading lead, so an agent could reasonably expect a data listing. The sibling implied by the workflow, cotlet_browser_*, is named, which helps disambiguate.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: call this first, then 'do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Arborgold Cloud Browser'. That is a usable sequence, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no differentiation from cotlet_app_guide, which appears to serve a similar guide-lookup role. The agent must infer which guide tool to prefer.

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