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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious context the annotations cannot convey: the response is a step-by-step recipe (screens, buttons, fields), nothing is executed server-side, and there is no public API so browser automation is the only path.

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?

Purpose comes first, the 'opens nothing by itself / use browser tools instead' constraint second, and the API research note last. The API paragraph is long relative to the task but earns some place by explaining why browser automation is required; it could still be trimmed to one clause.

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 guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (steps with screens, buttons, fields), that no side effect occurs, and which tool family to use next. The only gap is not naming the sibling action tools explicitly.

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. Nothing about argument meaning needs explaining, and the description correctly implies the only input is the implicit account context.

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 concrete action and resource: returns step-by-step guidance for 'Text All' inside the user's EZ Lawn Biller account. The clause 'opens nothing by itself' clearly marks it as an instruction-producing tool rather than an action tool, separating it from action siblings like compose_text or send_text, though those siblings are never named.

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 tells the agent what to do after the call ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools'), which is real usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this over the sibling action tools (compose_text, send_text) or what happens if the agent skips it — the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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