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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior — that the tool returns instructions only and "opens nothing by itself," and that ChowNow exposes no owner-usable API. That last point explains why a browser follow-up is required, which the annotations cannot convey. It is consistent with readOnlyHint rather than contradicting 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?

The purpose and the return-value nature are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the browser follow-up immediately after. The final API sentence is grammatically awkward ("ChowNow's official API: ChowNow has no API...") and the ChatGPT/Claude/any AI agent enumeration is mildly redundant, but both still carry information.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is returned (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields), what is not done (no browser opened), and what must follow (cotlet_browser_* tools). The main residual gap is that it does not clarify how the guide maps to account state or what to do if the user's session is not authenticated.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the scope is fixed to the authenticated user's own account rather than being parameterized.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("List customers in the user's own ChowNow account") and, importantly, corrects the misleading name by stating it "Returns how to do it in ChowNow step by step (screens, buttons, fields)" rather than customer records. It distinguishes itself from order-related siblings by scoping to customers, though it does not explicitly contrast with chownow_list_orders or cotlet_app_guide.

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 a clear operational workflow: this tool opens nothing, and the agent should "then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's ChowNow Cloud Browser." That is actionable when-to-use context, but it offers no explicit exclusion telling the agent when to prefer cotlet_app_guide or when this is unnecessary.

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