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

The description is consistent with the annotations, confirming the operation is inert ('opens nothing by itself') and idempotent by nature of being a read of instructions. That clarification is genuinely valuable given the misleading 'create' name. The trailing 'Alegra's official API: Yes...' sentence adds no behavioral guidance for this tool and instead muddies the picture about whether an API path is expected.

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 is well front-loaded: what it returns, that it opens nothing, and which tools to use next. But 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler, and the final sentence about Alegra's REST API does not help select or invoke this tool, so it fails the 'every sentence earns its place' test.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so ('step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'). It also tells the agent the browser tools must do the actual work, which is the key handoff. Minor gaps remain around what the steps look like if the user's account state prevents the flow.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no semantic gap for the description to close; the schema is complete by definition. A baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 a specific resource and, crucially, corrects the impression created by the tool name: it does not create anything, it 'Returns how to do it in Alegra step by step' and 'opens nothing by itself'. That distinction lets an agent pick it over a real mutator. It never differentiates against the sibling alegra_* tools (email_invoice, record_payment, add_contact), 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 a clear follow-up chain: get the steps here, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Alegra Cloud Browser. What is missing is when NOT to use it or which alegra_* sibling handles adjacent invoice tasks, leaving the agent to infer routing among the other Alegra tools.

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