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

Explicitly states the tool 'opens nothing by itself', which explains why readOnlyHint=true despite a 'create' name — the apparent conflict is fully reconciled rather than left for the agent to guess. It also discloses the absence of a public API, webhooks and a Zapier app, plus the QuickBooks/Google Calendar sync integrations, which are facts an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the outcome and the no-side-effect clarification, then the follow-up path. Slightly dense in the final sentence, and the '(checked 9 Nov 2026)' timestamp plus API/Zapier detail is useful but costs space; still, each element supports a real decision.

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 tool with no output schema, the definition covers what comes back (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields), that it makes no changes, and what to call next. Nothing an agent needs in order 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?

Zero parameters, so there are no semantics for the description to supply; the schema allows an empty object and covers 100%. Nothing is omitted that an agent would need in order to call it.

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 the resource ('lead') and the target account ('the user's own mHelpDesk account'), and immediately clarifies that it 'Returns how to do it in mHelpDesk step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself'. That resolves the ambiguity of the 'create' verb, which would otherwise read as a mutation. It stops short of naming a sibling it is not, relying on the cotlet_browser_* family reference instead.

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 workflow: call this first for instructions, 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's mHelpDesk Cloud Browser'. The note that mHelpDesk publishes no public API explains why browser tools are the only path. It does not address when to pick this over the other mHelpDesk create_* siblings, but the sequencing guidance is concrete.

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