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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that, explicitly saying the tool 'opens nothing by itself.' It adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations — that the return value is procedural (screens, buttons, fields) and that Klean CRM has no official API, webhooks, or Zapier app, explaining why browser automation is required.

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 behavioral statement and the execution path are front-loaded and unambiguous. The closing note about the absent API is somewhat tangential and includes a verification date, but it earns its place by justifying the browser-based approach.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so adequately ('step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the precise output shape is left implicit.

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; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the empty schema, and it correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 action and resource (assigning a cleaner in Klean CRM) and immediately clarifies that the tool returns instructions rather than performing the assignment, which disambiguates the otherwise misleading tool name. It also names the cotlet_browser_* family as the execution path, giving an agent a clear picture of where this tool sits.

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 states an explicit workflow: call this to get step-by-step guidance, then carry out the action with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser, and notes that this call 'opens nothing by itself.' It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as cotlet_app_guide, but the sequencing guidance is clear enough to select it correctly.

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