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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which would look contradictory against a tool named 'send_quote'; the description resolves this by explicitly stating it 'opens nothing by itself' and only returns instructions. It adds further context beyond the annotations: the shape of the output (screens, buttons, fields), the required follow-up tools, and the fact that 17hats has no public API explaining why browser automation is the path.

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 — that the tool returns instructions and opens nothing — is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is the right priority. The trailing '17hats's official API: 17hats publishes no public API.' is a fragment that reads awkwardly, though it does earn its place as justification for the browser-based workflow.

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 guidance tool, the definition covers what is returned and what to do next, which is the essential context. It stops short of describing the format or length of the returned steps or any failure conditions (e.g., what happens if the user is not signed in), leaving minor gaps.

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 there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent inputs, leaving the agent to combine it with browser-tool parameters instead.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send quote in the user's own 17hats account') and immediately redefines it precisely: the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the send. It also distinguishes itself from the cotlet_browser_* siblings, which do the actual work, so an agent can tell what this tool is and is not without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear use path: call this first to get the in-app steps, then execute them with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Cloud Browser. What is missing is exclusion/precondition guidance — e.g., that a quote must already exist or that a browser session must be open — so the agent must infer prerequisites.

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