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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the tool produces procedural guidance and "opens nothing by itself," which tells the agent no browser session is spun up. The trailing note about Teamleader's official API and the "checked 20 Oct 2026" stamp is meta-trivia that does not inform invocation.

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 message (returns instructions, performs no action, then use browser tools) is front-loaded and useful, but the description is padded with marketing framing ("from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent") and an API-availability digression with a date stamp that does not help an agent choose or call the tool. Roughly a third of the text does not earn its place.

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, read-only guide tool with no output schema, the description covers what matters: the return is a step-by-step procedure, no side effect occurs, and the follow-up browser tools are named. It does not describe the shape or granularity of the returned guide (e.g. whether it is a single workflow or multiple paths), which is a modest gap given there is no output schema.

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 is trivially complete at 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed to obtain the guide.

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 verb and resource (search companies in Teamleader) and explicitly clarifies that it returns a step-by-step how-to rather than executing the search: "Returns how to do it in Teamleader step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself." This resolves the ambiguity created by a name that sounds like it performs the search. It stops short of 5 because the phrasing initially reads as a data-returning search tool and only the second clause corrects that impression.

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 routing: use this to get the procedure, then "do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Teamleader Cloud Browser." That names the alternative path an agent should take for execution. It lacks explicit when-not guidance (e.g. when to prefer a sibling like teamleader_list_quotations for data retrieval 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.