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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds real value beyond that: 'opens nothing by itself' confirms no side effects, and the note that Kitomba publishes no public API, developer docs or webhooks explains why browser automation is the only path. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned instructions or any failure modes (e.g. not logged in).

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 purpose and the 'opens nothing by itself' caveat are front-loaded, which is good. But the text is padded: the 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' clause adds nothing, and the trailing API-availability paragraph with its 'checked 8 Nov 2026' stamp is longer than the decision-relevant point requires.

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 guide tool with annotations covering safety, the essentials (what it returns, that it performs no action, and which tools carry out the steps) are present. What is missing is any indication of the output's granularity, prerequisites (an open Kitomba Cloud Browser session), or guidance for the case where the returned steps fail.

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; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description does not waste words on nonexistent 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 names a specific resource (clients in the user's Kitomba account) and, crucially, clarifies that this tool does not itself perform the listing: it 'Returns how to do it in Kitomba step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' That distinction is essential because the tool name suggests a data-returning list operation. The opening sentence ('List clients ... from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') is a little muddled and initially reinforces the wrong impression, but the correction is explicit.

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 a clear follow-on workflow: after obtaining the steps, execute them 'with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Kitomba Cloud Browser.' That is genuinely useful routing. However, it never states when to choose this tool over similarly-scoped siblings such as cotlet_app_guide, nor does it say when not to use it (e.g. if the user has no Kitomba session).

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