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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), the description adds genuinely useful context: it 'opens nothing by itself', is a two-phase flow requiring a follow-up in the Cloud Browser, and returns instructional content rather than performing the write. This reconciles what looks like a mutation name with a read-only annotation. The trailing API/MCP sentence is more prefatory than behavioral.

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 workflow sentence is dense and effective, but it is preceded by ambiguous framing and followed by an unrelated 'HaloPSA's official API' sentence with a check date that does not help an agent decide to call the tool. Removing the trailing trivia would sharpen it.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (screens, buttons, fields), that it has no side effects, and how to complete the task afterward. It could say more about what the returned steps assume (e.g., which ticket context), but the essentials are present.

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 per the baseline this is a 4. The description adds no parameter detail because there is none to add, and an empty schema with additionalProperties=false is unambiguous.

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 body states the tool returns step-by-step instructions ('Returns how to do it in HaloPSA step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'), but the leading sentence and title frame it as 'Add private note', so the actual verb is ambiguous: is it adding the note or returning a guide? It does disambiguate that the action happens elsewhere, but an agent must parse two conflicting framings to see the real purpose.

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 clear sequencing: call this to get steps, then 'do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's HaloPSA Cloud Browser.' That names the downstream alternative and the condition for using it. It lacks any explicit when-not guidance or tie-in to the sibling halopsa_* API tools.

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