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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, no open-world access), the description discloses the key behavioral trait: it 'opens nothing by itself' and only returns instructions. It also explains the required environment (the user's own DaySmart account and Cloud Browser) and notes that DaySmart Salon/Pet lack a public API, which explains why screen-level instructions are provided. This is substantial added context.

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, front-loaded with what it returns and what it does not do. The phrase 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is mildly redundant, and the future-looking 'checked 11 Oct 2026' date is odd but brief. Overall it is efficient with little waste.

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 explain the return value, and it does: step-by-step screens, buttons, and fields. It also explains side effects and the follow-up tooling, which is sufficient for a no-parameter guide tool. Minor gap: it does not describe the shape or length of the returned steps, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not spend words on parameter semantics, and there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve.

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 the resource (DaySmart client lookup) and, crucially, clarifies that it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the lookup itself. That resolves the potential ambiguity from the name 'find client', though the opening sentence still reads slightly like it performs the action. It is distinguishable from sibling browser tools because it explicitly names the cotlet_browser_* tools as the follow-up.

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 clear context: use this to learn the DaySmart screens/buttons/fields, then execute with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's DaySmart Cloud Browser. It does not explicitly compare itself with cotlet_app_guide or cotlet_browser_find, so the agent must infer that this is the DaySmart-specific guide. Still, the workflow guidance is concrete and actionable.

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