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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that while adding real value beyond it: it says the tool performs no browser action itself and returns step-by-step screen/button/field guidance. The API/token background (AppSecretToken, AgreementGrantToken) explains why the browser route is used but is context rather than behavior, keeping it at a 4.

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 behavioral core is front-loaded and useful, but the final sentence is long and largely tangential, diving into API/token mechanics and a checked-on date that do not help an agent call this zero-parameter tool. "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" is filler that does not 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 tool with an output-less schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers what it returns and that it performs no side effects, which is what an agent needs to sequence the follow-up browser calls. It stops short of specifying the output format of the step-by-step guidance, a minor gap.

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 no parameter meaning for the description to add; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Add customer in the user's own e-conomic account") and then clarifies the actual deliverable: "Returns how to do it in e-conomic step by step (screens, buttons, fields)." That second clause is what distinguishes it from an action tool, though the opening sentence initially reads like a mutation, so the agent must read past it to learn this is a guidance tool.

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 explicitly routes the agent: this tool "opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's e-conomic Cloud Browser," naming the concrete alternative family. The API discussion also implies an alternative path when a developer agreement exists, but there is no explicit "do not use when..." exclusion, so it falls short of a 5.

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