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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, but the description adds the crucial fact that the tool performs no action itself ('opens nothing by itself') and returns instructions covering 'screens, buttons, fields'. That is real behavioral context beyond the structured hints, consistent with readOnlyHint=true.

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 behavioral fact is buried in the middle of a run-on second sentence, and the trailing API digression ('Kommo has a full REST API, but no Kommo-hosted MCP server in its docs (checked 20 Oct 2026)') consumes roughly a third of the text without affecting how the tool is called. Front-loading the 'returns instructions, does nothing' fact would improve it.

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 explain what comes back; it does say it returns step-by-step Kommo guidance, which is adequate. However it does not indicate the shape or granularity of the returned guide beyond 'screens, buttons, fields', and the misleading opening leaves ambiguity about whether a lead list is also returned.

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 to disambiguate; baseline applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed to get the guide.

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 opening sentence 'List leads in the user's own Kommo account' implies the tool performs the listing, but the second sentence reveals it only 'returns how to do it in Kommo step by step' and 'opens nothing by itself'. The actual purpose (return a how-to guide) is stated, but the framing contradicts the name/title, forcing the agent to reconcile two readings. It is distinguishable from the browser siblings, but the lead sentence misdirects.

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 workflow cue: call this to get steps, then execute them with 'the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Kommo Cloud Browser'. That is implied sequencing rather than explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, and no alternative sibling (e.g. cotlet_app_guide) is named or excluded.

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