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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: it performs no action on the user's account and only returns instructions, which is critical for an agent to know. The API pricing aside adds rationale but no additional behavioral detail about the tool itself.

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 behavior (returns step-by-step guidance, performs nothing, follow up with browser tools) is front-loaded and clear. The trailing sentence about WorkWave API setup fees and 2026 pricing is tangential to invoking this tool and could be trimmed, but it does explain why a browser-based guide exists.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description correctly describes what comes back (steps, screens, buttons, fields). For a zero-parameter guide tool, that covers what an agent needs to invoke and interpret it, though it omits prerequisites like an authenticated browser session.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter claims are made or contradicted.

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 the resource (customers in the user's PestPac account) and, importantly, discloses what the tool actually produces: step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields) rather than a customer list. There is some tension between the name 'list customers' and the fact that it returns a how-to guide, but the second clause resolves it. It does not differentiate from sibling PestPac tools like pestpac_list_unpaid_invoices, but those handle different resources.

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 gives useful sequencing guidance: the tool opens nothing itself and the actual work must be done with cotlet_browser_* tools. However, it never states when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., other PestPac guides or the official REST API beyond a cost comment), nor any preconditions such as needing an open PestPac Cloud Browser session.

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