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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with "opens nothing by itself," so there is no safety ambiguity. It adds real context beyond the annotations by disclosing the return content (screens, buttons, fields) and the required follow-up browser-tool sequence. It stops short of describing exact output structure or any variability by contact type.

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 workflow is front-loaded, which is good, but the text is noisy: "Lexware Office (lexoffice)" is repeated three times, and the closing note about the official REST API with an API key "(checked 14 Oct 2026)" does not help an agent decide or invoke anything. Tightening would improve scanability.

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, no-output-schema guide tool the essentials are covered: what it returns and what to do next. Still missing is any indication of the shape of the returned guidance or whether it differs by scenario, and the trailing API-availability sentence is a distractor rather than useful completeness.

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, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline is a 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless invocation with no configuration 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 description names a specific verb and resource ("Add contact in the user's own Lexware Office account") and then clarifies the actual mechanism: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. The opening framing is slightly misleading because the tool itself does not add anything, but the second sentence corrects that and an agent can tell it apart from the sibling lexware_office_create_invoice/create_quote tools.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description says to "then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools," which gives a downstream workflow. However, it never states when to prefer this over the generic cotlet_app_guide sibling, nor any precondition or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer the routing decision.

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