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 still adds real value by stating it 'opens nothing by itself' and returns procedural guidance instead of taking action, which prevents an agent from assuming this performs a lookup. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned steps.

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 purpose and the workflow instruction are well front-loaded. But the closing paragraph about Simpro's REST API and the absence of an official MCP server is justification/context that does not help an agent decide or invoke this tool, and it dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

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 zero-parameter guidance tool with no output schema, the description should explain where the customer identity comes from (presumably the conversation) and what the returned steps look like. It hints at the output format ('screens, buttons, fields') but never addresses the missing input, which is the main open question an agent would have.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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, crucially, clarifies the actual behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions ('screens, buttons, fields') rather than performing the lookup itself. That resolves the ambiguity in the name. It does not distinguish itself from the generically-named cotlet_app_guide sibling, which likely overlaps.

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 a workflow: call this, then execute the steps with cotlet_browser_* tools in the Simpro Cloud Browser. That is useful sequencing. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no named alternative (e.g., the direct simpro_* job/customer tools or cotlet_app_guide), and no indication of what triggers this versus other Simpro lookups.

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