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 critical behavioral fact that the call 'opens nothing by itself' and instead 'returns how to do it in Kustomer step by step (screens, buttons, fields),' which is exactly the context an agent needs beyond the structured hints.

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 necessary purpose and follow-up workflow, but the final sentence about Kustomer's official API and read-only MCP server is tangential and potentially distracting. 'ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is also padding, so the definition is only moderately tight.

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 instructional tool with no output schema, the definition explains the return format ('step by step (screens, buttons, fields)') and the follow-up browser workflow. It is nearly complete, but the dangling API/MCP sentence adds noise rather than helping the agent decide how to use the tool.

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?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning because none exist, and nothing is missing.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Add internal note in the user's own Kustomer account') and immediately clarifies that the tool only returns a step-by-step guide rather than performing the action. This distinguishes it from the browser action tools, though the name could imply direct mutation and it takes two sentences to resolve.

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 real workflow guidance by saying to do the task with the cotlet_browser_* tools after using this one. However, it does not compare against sibling Kustomer tools such as kustomer_reply_to_conversation or state when not to use this guide, so alternatives are only implied.

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