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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself'. More importantly, it discloses the unexpected return shape (procedural guidance, not customer data), which the annotations cannot convey. The closing note about the Mews Connector API and the 'checked 5 Nov 2026' date adds little behavioral value.

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 instruction (returns a step-by-step guide; run it with cotlet_browser_* tools) is front-loaded and clear, but 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is marketing filler and the API/MCP-server aside with a hard-coded check date is extraneous to the calling decision. Roughly a third of the text does not earn its place.

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, a rich annotation set and no output schema, the description covers what an agent still needs: what comes back (screens, buttons, fields), that it performs no action itself, and which tools to use next. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 semantics to explain; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description correctly implies nothing needs to be supplied, though it does not say how the target customer is identified at all.

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 concrete behavior: it returns a step-by-step Mews how-to (screens, buttons, fields) rather than the profile data itself. This resolves the ambiguity in the name 'get_customer_profile' and separates it from the cotlet_browser_* tools that perform the actual action. It loses a point because the name/behavior mismatch (a guide tool with a fetch-sounding name) requires a second read 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 defines an explicit two-step workflow: call this first to learn the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Mews Cloud Browser. That is actionable routing guidance. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., when a dedicated mews_* action tool already exists for the task).

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