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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it performs no action itself and opens no browser, and the agent must follow up with cotlet_browser_* calls. It does not say whether the returned steps are versioned, cached, or account-specific, or how large the returned procedure is.

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 facts (what it returns, that it acts on nothing, and which tools execute it) are front-loaded and useful. However, the final clause about Moxie publishing no API, webhooks or Zapier app is a long aside, contains a future-dated verification stamp, and dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

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 does its job by explaining the return value as step-by-step UI instructions. For a zero-parameter tool it is nearly complete, but it never defines what makes a client 'lapsed', which is the one semantic the agent cannot otherwise infer or supply.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless call by not describing any inputs.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Find lapsed clients') scoped to 'the user's own Moxie account' and immediately clarifies the deliverable: step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields), not the data itself. It does not name the closest sibling (moxie_list_clients) to contrast against, but the 'returns how to do it ... opens nothing by itself' phrasing clearly separates it from a data-returning query tool.

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 states a clear usage chain: call this first for the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Moxie Cloud Browser. That is real when-and-how guidance. It stops short of stating a when-not case or naming the alternative for agents that want client data directly rather than a procedure.

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