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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful behavior detail that it 'opens nothing by itself' and only returns a walkthrough, which tells the agent this call has no side effects and must be paired with browser actions.

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 purpose and the 'returns steps, opens nothing' fact are front-loaded and useful. The trailing note about 404s on ezlawnbiller.com/api and the QuickBooks FAQ is eccentric detail that pads the definition without helping the agent invoke the tool correctly.

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, read-only guide tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it returns, its side-effect profile, and the follow-on tools. The only real gap is the absence of any comparison to the near-identical impersonation and preview siblings.

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, and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter detail is needed or missing.

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?

States a specific action ('Preview as customer') and resource ('EZ Lawn Biller account'), and clarifies the output is step-by-step instructions rather than an action. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like ez_lawn_biller_customer_impersonation or ez_lawn_biller_preview, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 follow-on path: read the steps, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. However, it never says when to choose this over the similarly named impersonation or other *_preview siblings, leaving the selection decision implicit.

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