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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that the return value is a screen/button/field walkthrough and that nothing is opened, which reconciles the misleading 'add' name with the read-only annotation. It does not describe the shape or length of that step-by-step output beyond 'screens, buttons, fields,' leaving the agent to discover format on first call.

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 fact is only in the second sentence, after a lead clause that mischaracterizes the tool as performing the write. 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is padding that adds nothing for an agent already in the client. The Enterprise-API note is defensible context but is compressed into a third sentence that could be trimmed without loss.

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 guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, that it has no side effects, and which sibling tools to use next—the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly. Only the exact return structure (text vs. numbered steps, length) and a when-not condition are absent.

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 and the schema is an empty object with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies. The description implicitly explains why there are no arguments (it only returns guidance), which is coherent.

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 verb+resource is concrete ('add client note' in Boulevard) and the second sentence clarifies the real behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. It also differentiates itself from the cotlet_browser_* siblings that actually execute the step. The lead clause reads like the tool does the write itself, which slightly blurs the purpose until the next sentence corrects it.

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?

Explicit chain is given: call this to get the click path, then perform it with cotlet_browser_* in the user's Boulevard Cloud Browser. It states the tool 'opens nothing by itself,' which tells the agent not to expect side effects. What's missing is a when-not clause (e.g., skip if the path is already known) or a pointer to cotlet_app_guide/cotlet_apps as an alternative source of guidance.

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