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

Consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and adds real value beyond them: the tool performs no action itself, returns step-by-step UI instructions, and defers execution to browser tools. The note about Kustomer's REST API and read-only official MCP server explains why browser automation is required, though the hard-coded 'checked 17 Oct 2026' date is extraneous justification rather than behavior.

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 purpose and the guidance-only nature are front-loaded in the first clause, and the follow-up instruction is stated compactly. The final sentence about Kustomer's REST API and official MCP server is tangential justification that does little for an agent selecting or invoking the tool.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description fills the key remaining gap by stating what actually comes back (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and that the caller must do the work via browser tools. That is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 and the schema is a closed empty object, so there is no parameter meaning to convey. Baseline of 4 applies; nothing in the description misrepresents the input surface.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Snooze conversation in the user's own Kustomer account') and immediately clarifies the real behavior: it 'Returns how to do it in Kustomer step by step... and opens nothing by itself.' This resolves the potential confusion between the tool's name and its guidance-only nature. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the other kustomer_* action tools, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 clear follow-up path: call this, then execute with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Kustomer Cloud Browser. However, it never states when NOT to use it or contrasts it with sibling action tools like kustomer_reply_to_conversation or kustomer_tag_conversation. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than explicitly scoped.

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