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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: it performs no action and returns procedural content only, which an agent must know before chaining into browser tools. However, it says little about the shape or size of the returned instructions, or how they relate to a specific lead — it lists leads but takes no parameters to scope them.

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 key clarification (returns steps, opens nothing) is front-loaded, which is good. But the opening clause 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is marketing filler, and the trailing note about Tripleseat's REST API and lack of an official MCP server is tangential to selecting or invoking the tool.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies what an agent needs: what it returns, that it has side effects on nothing, and which tool family to use next. The absence of an output schema means the return format is only loosely characterized ('screens, buttons, fields'), but that is adequate for a procedural guide.

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 has zero parameters, which establishes a baseline of 4. The empty schema is consistent with a tool that returns static procedural guidance rather than querying a filtered set. Nothing in the description conflicts with the schema.

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 resource (leads in the user's Tripleseat account) and, crucially, discloses that the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than lead data — 'Returns how to do it in Tripleseat step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' That resolves the mismatch between the name 'list_leads' and actual behavior. It does not differentiate itself from similarly-purposed siblings such as cotlet_app_guide, so it falls short of a 5.

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 operational routing: this tool produces guidance, then the agent should act via 'the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Tripleseat Cloud Browser.' It also implicitly excludes itself from performing the action ('opens nothing by itself'). There is no explicit when-not-to-use clause or comparison against sibling lead tools like tripleseat_convert_lead_to_event or cotlet_app_guide.

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