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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces rather than contradicts them by clarifying that the tool 'opens nothing by itself.' It adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond the annotations: the returned payload shape (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and the fact that Salonized exposes no public API, webhooks, or MCP server, which explains why browser automation is required. It stops short of describing rate limits, error behavior, or how much detail the steps contain.

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?

Core routing information is front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is good structure. However, 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler that does not help tool selection, and the closing fragment about the official API is phrased as an awkward label-value statement with a future-dated verification stamp. Trimming those two elements would sharpen the definition without losing meaning.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations already covering safety, the description carries the right amount of burden: what it returns conceptually and what the agent must do next. An agent can call this correctly and knows the follow-up path. Greater precision on the returned instruction format or failure modes when a screen does not match would push it higher.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies since no parameter meaning is missing. No misleading parameter language is present.

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 states a specific resource and verb pair (add customer note in Salonized) and then clarifies the actual mechanic: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. It distinguishes itself from the cotlet_browser_* family by naming them as the execution path, though it does not differentiate from sibling salonized_* guide tools. The opening clause ('Add customer note...') briefly reads as a mutation, but the second sentence corrects that within the same paragraph.

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 clear, actionable routing: call this first to get screens/buttons/fields, then execute with cotlet_browser_* in the user's Salonized Cloud Browser. It also states an implicit exclusion ('opens nothing by itself' and no API exists, so browser automation is the only path). It does not explicitly name a 'do not use this if' condition or contrast against other salonized_* tools, which keeps it from a 5.

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