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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: it opens nothing by itself, it is a guidance-only tool, and execution is deferred to the browser tools. The trailing note that Kommo has a REST API but no hosted MCP server is contextual but adds little operational value.

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 critical behavior — that this returns instructions and does not act — is front-loaded in the second sentence, which is the strongest part of the definition. The third sentence about Kommo's REST API and the 'checked 20 Oct 2026' date is tangential to invoking the tool and dilutes focus.

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 must characterize the return value, and it does only loosely ('step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'). For a zero-parameter guidance tool that is roughly sufficient, but the shape and granularity of the returned steps remain underspecified relative to the sibling browser tools the agent must chain into.

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 no schema meaning left to compensate for. The description 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 resource and action (accepting an incoming lead in the user's Kommo account) and immediately qualifies the real behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. That qualification distinguishes it from the cotlet_browser_* executors, though the opening imperative 'Accept incoming lead' still reads like a mutation before the clarification lands.

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 follow-on path ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Kommo Cloud Browser'), which implies when to use it. But it never states when to prefer this over siblings like cotlet_app_guide or kommo_list_leads, and gives no preconditions for the user's browser session.

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