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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself', so safety is unambiguous. It adds real context beyond the annotations: the return payload is a how-to (screens, buttons, fields), and ZenMaid has no public API, REST endpoints or webhooks, which explains why browser automation is required. It does not describe the shape or length of the returned guide, which keeps it from a 5.

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 information is front-loaded and useful, but the final sentence is redundant and circular ('ZenMaid's official API: ZenMaid has no public API: its help center says it does not support any kind of public API'), restating the same fact three ways. The oddly future-dated '(checked 11 Oct 2026)' citation also adds noise rather than clarity.

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 carries the right burden: it explains what comes back (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields) and what to do next. What is missing is any sense of the guide's granularity or coverage — whether it covers creating, editing and deleting customers or only viewing the list — which matters given the sibling zenmaid_assign_cleaner and zenmaid_create_appointment tools.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly implies no inputs are needed to fetch 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 resolves the tension in the name: the tool does not actually list customers, it returns step-by-step instructions for how to list them in ZenMaid, and explicitly says it 'opens nothing by itself'. That is a specific, distinguishing statement of what the tool returns. It loses a point only because the leading clause ('List customers in the user's own ZenMaid account') still reads like the tool performs the listing, so an agent skimming the first line could mis-select it.

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 route the agent onward ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's ZenMaid Cloud Browser'), which is genuine when-to-use guidance and names the alternative tool family. However, it never states when NOT to use it — e.g. versus cotlet_app_guide or the specific zenmaid_create_appointment / zenmaid_get_schedule siblings — so the agent must infer whether this guide is the right entry point for any given ZenMaid task.

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