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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent, reinforcing it with "opens nothing by itself" and naming the browser tools that must do the actual work. It also adds genuinely non-obvious context — that no public EZ Lawn Biller API exists, so browser automation is the only route — which explains why the follow-up path is required.

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 behavior is compressed into one long run-on clause, and the integration-research detail (specific 404 URLs, the 11 Nov 2026 date, the QuickBooks FAQ reference) is bulky for what amounts to "there is no public API." The key point that this tool returns instructions rather than doing anything is buried mid-sentence rather than front-loaded.

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 guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (screens, buttons, fields), what it does not do, and which tools complete the job. The remaining gap is scope — which notes operations the guidance actually covers — but the operational picture an agent needs is present.

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 clarify beyond confirming the call is argument-free. 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?

"Returns how to do it in EZ Lawn Biller step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself" does state the actual behavior: it is a procedural-guidance tool, not an action tool. However the resource action is left vague — "Customer notes" never says whether this covers viewing, adding, editing, or deleting notes — and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like ez_lawn_biller_pin_notes or ez_lawn_biller_service_notes.

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?

The description gives a clear operating sequence: call this to get the steps, then perform them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's EZ Lawn Biller Cloud Browser, and it explicitly notes the tool "opens nothing by itself." It does not state when a user should prefer this over the sibling notes tools, so it falls short of the top mark.

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