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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds the crucial behavioral fact beyond them: the tool only returns guidance (screens, buttons, fields) and performs no side effects itself. The API-status note explains why browser automation is required. It stops short of describing the exact output format or whether the guidance is static per app.

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 instruction ('returns how to do it step by step … then do it with cotlet_browser_* tools') is clear, but it is not front-loaded and is wrapped in filler like 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent'. The closing sentence about Freshsales' REST API and a dated verification adds tangential context rather than actionable guidance.

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 guidance tool with annotations covering safety, what is missing is modest but real: the output shape of the step-by-step guide and how to recover if the described screens don't match are unaddressed. The API-detour sentence takes space without telling an agent anything it can act on.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The schema is a closed empty object, consistent with the description's claim that it takes no input.

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 name and title promise 'List contacts in Freshsales', but the description later reveals the tool actually returns step-by-step instructions and 'opens nothing by itself' — a different function than the headline suggests. The actual behavior is stated, but only after a marketing-flavored first sentence, so an agent could form the wrong expectation before reading on.

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 gives useful sequencing — call this, then execute the steps with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Freshsales Cloud Browser — which is real when-to-use guidance. However, it never states when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives like cotlet_app_guide or a direct cotlet_browser_navigate, and there are no prerequisites or exclusions.

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