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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by stating it "opens nothing by itself" and that it returns instructional content. The API-status note (full REST API with Bearer key, no first-party MCP server) further explains why this browser-guide path exists. It does not describe the structure of the returned steps beyond "screens, buttons, fields".

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 and next step are front-loaded in the first two sentences. The audience phrase "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" and the dated API-verification note are slightly extraneous, but each still contributes routing or trust context.

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 description covers what it returns, that it has no side effects, and which tools continue the flow. What an agent needs in order to call it and act on the result is present; only the return format's exact shape is left unspecified.

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 fully described, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies with no gap to compensate for.

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 verb and resource ("Start lead search in the user's own Findymail account") and immediately clarifies the actual deliverable is step-by-step instructions rather than the action itself. That reframing is what separates it from findymail_find_email and from the cotlet_browser_* action tools, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives clear workflow context: call this first to get screens/buttons/fields, then execute with cotlet_browser_* tools in the Findymail Cloud Browser. It does not name alternatives it should be preferred over (e.g. cotlet_app_guide or findymail_find_email), so the routing boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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