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 safety is covered structurally. The description still adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the return shape (a step-by-step procedure referencing screens, buttons and fields) and that the tool performs no action itself. It does not describe output format details or what the returned guide looks like in practice, so it lands at a solid 3 rather than higher.

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 guidance is front-loaded and useful, but the final sentence about Property Finder's partner-only API, including a check date, is digressive and makes the middle sentence a run-on. It does carry some value by preempting an agent's search for an official API path, yet it could be trimmed considerably. Structure is acceptable but not tight.

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 parameterless, non-mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, that it takes no action, and how it chains into the browser tools, which is enough for correct invocation. The only gap is that it does not characterize the returned guide's structure or any preconditions (e.g. being logged into Property Finder), which a reader might want before chaining.

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 (empty object, additionalProperties false), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Per the zero-parameter baseline, a 4 is appropriate, and the description correctly implies no input is required because the tool only emits guidance.

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 a specific resource and scope ('leads in the user's own Property Finder account') and immediately corrects the expectation created by the name, stating the tool returns step-by-step instructions and 'opens nothing by itself' rather than the leads themselves. It is distinguishable from the cotlet_browser_* siblings, which it names as the actual execution mechanism. The lingering ambiguity between the 'list leads' name and the guide-returning behavior keeps it just short of a 5.

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 an explicit workflow: call this first to get the Property Finder steps for screens, buttons and fields, then perform them using cotlet_browser_* in the user's Cloud Browser. That is a clear when-to-use and how-to-chain signal with no inference required. It stops short of an explicit exclusion (e.g. when to prefer property_finder_get_listing_stats instead), so it is not a full 5.

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