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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description corroborates and extends this by stating it opens nothing, returns procedural guidance (screens, buttons, fields) rather than data, and noting Powered Now publishes no public API docs. That third-party-handoff detail is genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler, and the handoff to cotlet_browser_* follows logically from the 'returns steps' statement. The final fragment ('Powered Now's official API: Powered Now publishes no public API docs.') is slightly redundant and reads as a dangling note.

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 and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so concretely (screens, buttons, fields). It also names the downstream tools required to actually complete the task. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly appears to be 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 the schema baseline is 4 and there is nothing further the description could add about argument meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add customer in the user's own Powered Now account') and clarifies that the tool itself only returns a step-by-step procedure rather than performing the action. The name alone would suggest a write operation, so that clarification is doing real work, but the 'what this returns' point is buried in the second sentence rather than front-loaded.

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?

Explicitly describes the two-step workflow: get the steps from this tool, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. It also rules out any implicit side effect with 'opens nothing by itself.' No explicit when-not-to-use case or comparison against cotlet_app_guide is given, which keeps it short of a 5.

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