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. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the tool returns instructional content only and performs no action, and it discloses the OAuth2-client prerequisite and the absence of an official SuiteCRM MCP server. It stops short of describing the output structure (e.g., how long the guide is, whether it varies by SuiteCRM version).

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 first two sentences are front-loaded and earn their place, but the trailing API/OAuth2 sentence — including the oddly forward-dated '(checked 23 Oct 2026)' — is tangential to how to invoke this instruction-delivery tool and reads as boilerplate. It partially compensates by flagging an admin prerequisite, but could be trimmed to one clause.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does ('how to do it in SuiteCRM step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'). It also clarifies that the tool does not act, so the agent knows to chain into the browser tools. Minor gap: it does not state assumptions about the user's SuiteCRM plan/version or session state.

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 correctly declares an empty object with additionalProperties=false, 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 the actual function clearly: it returns step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields) for listing leads rather than returning lead data, and explicitly says it 'opens nothing by itself.' That distinguishes it from an execution tool, though the name/title ('List leads') creates some friction with the guide-delivery behavior the text describes.

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 does give a follow-up path — 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's SuiteCRM Cloud Browser' — which implies this is a preparatory/instruction step. However it never states when to choose this over siblings like cotlet_app_guide or cotlet_apps, nor any prerequisite such as the user needing an active SuiteCRM browser session.

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