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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself,' which tells the agent no state changes occur. Beyond that it adds little: no indication of the return format, length, or whether the steps are personalized to the user's account; the 'checked 28 Oct 2026' provenance note is dated in the future and adds noise rather than behavior.

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 critical constraint ('opens nothing by itself') is front-loaded in the second sentence and the workflow handoff to cotlet_browser_* follows immediately. The closing API-access sentence is relevant context but wordy, and the future-dated '(checked 28 Oct 2026)' parenthetical could be dropped without loss.

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 explain returns, and it does: step-by-step screens, buttons, and fields. For a zero-parameter, read-only guidance tool this is close to sufficient. A brief note on the response format (plain text vs structured steps) and any prerequisite such as being signed in to Tekmetric would close the remaining 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 and the schema is empty with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 the concrete goal (texting a Tekmetric customer) and then states precisely what the tool actually does: 'Returns how to do it in Tekmetric step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' That distinguishes it from the cotlet_browser_* siblings it names. It loses a point because the opening sentence ('Text customer in the user's own Tekmetric account') initially implies the tool performs the action, and only the second sentence corrects that.

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 clear usage path: call this for guidance, then perform the action with cotlet_browser_* tools in the Tekmetric Cloud Browser, and notes the official API route as an alternative blocked by application approval. What is missing is any explicit when-not guidance, e.g. what to do if the user has no Tekmetric account or is not logged in.

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