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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself', which is exactly the non-obvious fact an agent needs for a tool named 'add_contact'. It also discloses the paid-plan API constraint, though that detail is tangential to actually invoking the tool.

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 sentences are front-loaded and earn their place. The third sentence about Holded's REST API and paid plans (with a 'checked 14 Oct 2026' stamp) does not help an agent decide or invoke, and reads as appended filler.

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 parameterless, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (step-by-step instructions) and what to do next (cotlet_browser_* tools). Only the exact shape of the returned guidance and any fallback if the browser tools are unavailable is left open.

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 no parameter meaning for the description to add; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads 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 spells out the real behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields) for adding a contact in Holded, rather than performing the add. That resolves the mismatch with the name 'add_contact'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like cotlet_app_guide or holded_create_invoice, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Holded Cloud Browser' gives a clear follow-on step after calling this tool. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over cotlet_app_guide or the holded_create_* siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the paid-plan note.

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