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

The description earns its keep by explaining that the tool 'opens nothing by itself' and returns screen/button/field instructions, which is exactly the context needed to reconcile the readOnlyHint=true annotation with a verb that sounds like a write. It also discloses the underlying constraint (no public Kitomba API, partner-only integrations) that forces the browser handoff, though it says nothing about failure modes if the browser session is not active.

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 action and the handoff are front-loaded, which is good, but the final sentence is a lengthy API-integration aside with a dated verification stamp ('checked 8 Nov 2026') that does little to help an agent invoke this specific tool. Roughly a third of the text is background rather than instruction.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what is missing: what comes back (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields) and which tool family carries out the change. It stops short of stating prerequisites such as an authenticated Cloud Browser session, which is the one operational detail an agent would still need.

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 baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description correctly implies a no-argument, session-scoped call without adding misleading parameter-like language.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Add client note') and scopes it to the user's own Kitomba account, but the second sentence reveals the tool does not actually add anything — it returns a step-by-step guide. The true purpose is clear once read in full, though the leading phrase could mislead an agent skimming the first line.

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?

Explicitly hands off the actual execution to the 'cotlet_browser_*' tools in the Kitomba Cloud Browser, which tells an agent both what this tool does and what to do next. It does not, however, contrast itself with alternatives like cotlet_app_guide, leaving the boundary between the two implied.

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