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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world, and the description is consistent with them. It adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the tool 'opens nothing by itself' and returns a walkthrough of screens, buttons and fields, which prevents an agent from assuming it executes the export. It does not mention rate limits or the exact response structure, but the key behavioral surprise is disclosed.

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 essential point (this returns instructions, not data; then use the browser tools) is front-loaded and unambiguous. Minor waste remains: 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler, and the closing API sentence is phrased redundantly ('Crexi's official API: Crexi has no public API').

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 already covering safety, the description carries the main remaining burden: what the tool actually returns and what it does not do. It covers both adequately. A brief note on the shape of the returned walkthrough would make it fully self-sufficient.

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; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description adds no parameter guidance because none is needed.

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 specifies the resource (leads in the user's own Crexi account) and, crucially, clarifies that the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the export. The verb 'Export' in the name/title overstates the action, but the second sentence corrects it. It also distinguishes itself from the browser siblings by naming cotlet_browser_* as the tools that actually do the work.

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 states clearly when to call it (user wants to export Crexi leads) and what to do next ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Crexi Cloud Browser'), which routes the agent to the correct alternative. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions or alternatives for adjacent Crexi tasks like crexi_list_saved_searches.

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