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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them, adding that the call opens nothing and only returns procedural content (screens, buttons, fields). That is a useful clarification of side-effect scope beyond the annotation flags. It does not describe the shape or length of the returned guidance, which is a minor gap.

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 clarification is front-loadable but is placed mid-second-sentence, and phrases like "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" are filler. The API-availability note (including the oddly specific "checked 9 Nov 2026" date) is relevant justification for the browser workaround but adds bulk to a zero-parameter tool.

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, annotation-rich guide tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields), what it does not do (opens nothing), and the follow-up tool family to use. That is close to complete; only the granularity of the returned guidance 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 schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the description carries no parameter burden and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or adds confusion about inputs.

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 the concrete resource and scope ("clients in the user's own FitSW account") and, importantly, corrects the misleading name by stating it returns step-by-step instructions rather than records. It also points at the cotlet_browser_* tools that actually perform the listing, which separates it from siblings like fitsw_add_client or cotlet_browser_read. The only drag is that the real nature of the tool (a guide, not a lister) only becomes clear in the second sentence.

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?

"Opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's FitSW Cloud Browser" gives an explicit two-step usage pattern: call this first for the procedure, then drive the browser. There is no explicit when-not-to-use case or a named alternative for retrieving client data directly, so it falls short of a 5.

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