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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with the crucial claim that it 'opens nothing by itself' — the single most important behavioral fact given the misleading name. It also adds that Kahunas publishes no API documentation, explaining why a UI-procedure tool exists. It stops short of describing the shape or fidelity of the returned instructions 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?

It is short, but the leading clause about ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent is filler, the closing sentence about Kahunas's API docs is awkwardly phrased and secondary, and the load-bearing clarification ('opens nothing by itself') is buried mid-sentence rather than front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs: what is returned, that no action is taken, and which tools to use next. Only the granularity of the returned procedure is left unspecified, which is a minor gap.

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 the schema baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description needs to compensate for undocumented inputs, and the description correctly does not invent any.

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 makes clear that despite the name 'add client', the tool only returns a step-by-step procedure (screens, buttons, fields) rather than performing the action, and names the cotlet_browser_* tools that actually do it. That is a specific, distinguishable capability. It loses a point because the first sentence ('Add client in the user's own Kahunas account') initially reads like a write operation and the corrective clarification only arrives 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?

It gives explicit workflow context: call this first to get the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Kahunas Cloud Browser. No 'when not to use' or routing against sibling kahunas_* tools is provided, but the sequencing guidance is unambiguous.

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