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

The description earns real credit beyond annotations by stating it 'opens nothing by itself' and returns screens/buttons/fields, which reconciles with and explains readOnlyHint=true rather than contradicting it. It also supplies the API-key and 50-reads-per-day constraint that justifies the browser path. However, the rate-limit detail concerns the official API rather than this tool's own behavior, and there is no statement about whether the returned guide is account-, office-, or version-specific.

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 first two clauses are tightly front-loaded and carry all the operative information. The trailing API paragraph, complete with a dated 'checked 8 Nov 2026' parenthetical, is tangential justification rather than something an agent needs in order to select or invoke the tool, and it dilutes the message.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so by promising step-by-step screens, buttons, and fields. Combined with the annotations covering safety and idempotency, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though it could say more about what the guide looks like or its scope.

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 and the description correctly implies nothing needs to be supplied. No parameter meaning is left ambiguous.

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 names a specific verb and resource (add customer note in the user's FieldRoutes account) and immediately clarifies the crucial twist: it does not perform the action, it returns step-by-step guidance. That reframing keeps the name from being misleading, though the name alone reads like a write operation an agent must read past.

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: call this to get instructions, then perform them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the FieldRoutes Cloud Browser. That is a concrete workflow handoff to named siblings. It stops short of stating when to use this versus fieldroutes_list_customers or when a note is unnecessary.

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