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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds the important non-obvious behavior that it performs no UI action and only returns procedural instructions. It does not cover cost, latency, or what the returned steps look like structurally.

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 first two sentences carry the operational meaning and are front-loaded, but the trailing sentence about Kommo's REST API and the absence of a Kommo-hosted MCP server is browser/research boilerplate that does not help an agent invoke this tool. That sentence is dead weight in an otherwise short description.

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, non-destructive guide tool with no output schema, the description supplies what matters: that it returns sequential UI instructions and which sibling tools carry out the action. It stops short of describing the return structure or any session preconditions, but nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Baseline of 4 applies, since no additional parameter meaning is 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add note in ... Kommo account') and then immediately clarifies that it returns a step-by-step guide rather than performing the action ('opens nothing by itself'). The distinction from the cotlet_browser_* siblings is made explicit, though the 'Add note' framing sets an expectation the tool deliberately does not fulfill, which costs a bit of clarity.

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?

Gives a concrete usage path: call this to get the Kommo steps, then execute them with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Kommo Cloud Browser. There is no explicit when-not or prerequisite guidance (e.g., whether a browser session must already be open), but the workflow is unambiguous.

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