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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), the description adds the critical behavioral fact that the tool 'opens nothing by itself' and returns a procedural guide, plus the integration landscape explaining why browser automation is the only path. This is exactly the context an agent needs to plan a multi-step flow and explains a name that otherwise implies mutation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and the 'opens nothing by itself' caveat before the API note. The API paragraph is the least essential part but still earns its place by preempting an agent's search for a REST/webhook alternative; the 'checked 9 Nov 2026' stamp is minor clutter.

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 correctly has to state what comes back, and it does ('screens, buttons, fields'). The remaining gap is that a zero-parameter tool cannot tailor the guide to a specific customer or job, and the description never says the returned steps are generic — a small but real omission for an agent that expects estimate-specific detail.

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 schema takes no parameters and forbids additional properties, so there is nothing to disambiguate; a zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter context, but none 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?

The verb+resource (create an estimate in LawnBoss) is named immediately, and the second sentence corrects the natural reading of the name: the tool does not act, it returns step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields). That correction makes the actual function unmistakable, though an agent skimming only the first clause could still briefly mistake it for a write action.

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?

Clear sequencing is given: call this first to get the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the LawnBoss Cloud Browser. What is missing is a comparative cue against the sibling cotlet_app_guide, which appears to serve a similar guide-fetching role, so the agent has no explicit rule for choosing between them.

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