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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with the important disclosure that the tool "opens nothing by itself" and that action happens through the browser tools. That is genuine context beyond the annotations. It omits how the guidance is scoped (no company or invoice input is accepted) and what the returned steps look like in practice.

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 operative instruction is front-loaded and useful, but roughly half the text is a digression about Bokio's public REST API, private vs. public integration tokens and OAuth 2.0 — none of which helps an agent decide to call this zero-parameter guidance tool or invoke it correctly. That material should be trimmed or moved elsewhere.

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 parameters, no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the essentials are present: what is returned and what to do next. The description is incomplete on the mechanics an agent would want — how the guidance is tailored without any input, and what a caller should do if the user is not already in a browser session.

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, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It does not specify how the tool determines which company or invoice context to describe, but with an empty schema there is no parameter semantics to explain.

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 what the tool actually does: "Returns how to do it in Bokio step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself." That distinguishes it from a real write operation and from the cotlet_browser_* siblings it hands off to. The opening sentence ("Create invoice in the user's own Bokio account") is misleading in isolation and could be read as performing the creation, so clarity is recovered only on the second sentence.

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 usable sequence — call this to get the steps, then execute them with cotlet_browser_* tools — which is implicit when-to-use guidance plus a named follow-up alternative. It never says when NOT to use it, and it does not mention relevant siblings such as bokio_send_invoice or bokio_list_unpaid_invoices that an agent might confuse with invoice creation.

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