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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured information: the return value is procedural text (screens, buttons, fields) rather than a state change, and it explicitly states nothing is opened by itself. The API-availability note further explains why the browser path is required, though it does not cover failure modes or what happens if the Cloud Browser session is unavailable.

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 description is front-loaded with the key fact (returns steps, performs nothing) in the first sentence, followed by the handoff to cotlet_browser_* tools. The trailing API-availability sentence is longer than necessary and reads as provenance evidence rather than agent-actionable guidance, which costs a point on tightness but not on clarity.

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, non-executing guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what it returns, that it mutates nothing, and which tools to use to actually complete the task. The main gap is that it never clarifies which entity is being marked on-demand, which matters given a large sibling catalog of mark_* and billing tools.

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 of 4 applies; there is no parameter surface the description needs to compensate for. The description does not need to explain inputs and correctly focuses on output shape and follow-up tooling instead.

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 makes clear this is a guidance tool, not an action tool: it 'Returns how to do it in EZ Lawn Biller step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' That is a specific and unusual behavior, well differentiated from execution siblings. The remaining weakness is that 'mark on-demand' itself is never defined (on-demand what – customer, visit, service?), so an agent must infer the target object from the sibling set.

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 two-step workflow: call this to get instructions, then perform them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Cloud Browser. However, it offers no explicit when-not guidance and does not distinguish itself from adjacent state-change siblings such as ez_lawn_biller_mark_completed or ez_lawn_biller_mark_as_reviewed, so selection still depends on the agent inferring intent from the tool name.

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