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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior; the description adds useful context that the tool opens nothing by itself and that the output is navigational instructions covering screens, buttons and fields. That goes beyond the structured fields and tells the agent what to expect back.

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 behavior is front-loaded and clear, but the closing sentences about WellnessLiving's paid production API, the staging request, the developer audience and a verification date are tangential justification that does not help an agent decide or invoke 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, non-destructive guide tool the description covers what is returned and the handoff to browser tools, but it omits what the caller must supply (e.g., business context, lead details) and whether the steps are tailored to any input, which matters since the schema accepts nothing.

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, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning to explain or omit.

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 (lead in WellnessLiving) and clarifies that it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action, which separates it from the action-performing siblings like wellnessliving_book_appointment. The opening phrase 'Add lead in the user's own WellnessLiving account' could be briefly misread as a mutation, but the next clause corrects that immediately.

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 explicit sequencing: get the steps here, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools. It does not name the likely alternative (cotlet_app_guide) or state when not to use this tool, leaving a small gap in routing guidance.

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