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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact: the tool "opens nothing by itself" and merely returns screens, buttons and fields, so the agent must not assume the action occurred. The API availability note is also useful context. It stops short of saying whether any customer data is returned or how large/structured the guide output 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by execution guidance and the API caveat; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations. Every sentence carries a distinct piece of information.

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 must describe the return value, and it only says it returns steps/screens/buttons/fields without stating format or whether customer records accompany the guide. For a zero-annotation-burden read tool that is mostly adequate, but the remaining ambiguity about output content is a real gap.

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; the baseline applies. The description correctly signals a no-argument, self-contained call.

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 name and first sentence promise to "List customers in the user's own Service Fusion account," but the second sentence says the tool actually "Returns how to do it in Service Fusion step by step." That internal tension between returning customer data and returning a how-to guide makes it unclear what the tool really produces, though the guide/execute split versus the cotlet_browser_* tools is at least stated.

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 explicitly sequences usage: call this to get the step-by-step, then perform the work with cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. It also explains why no direct API route exists (Open API Pro-only, no official MCP server). It does not name when to prefer the sibling write tools or cotlet_app_guide, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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