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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the return-content disclosure: a step-by-step procedure listing screens, buttons and fields. It also explicitly states "opens nothing by itself", removing any doubt that this is a dry-run/instruction tool rather than an executor — helpful context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and the key caveat that nothing is opened. The closing fragment "Clear Estimates's official API: Clear Estimates publishes no public API." is awkwardly label-shaped and mildly redundant, but it does carry the useful fact that no API exists, justifying the browser-driven approach.

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 that returns procedural text, the description covers what it returns, what it does not do, and which tools to use next. The only omission is any prerequisite about needing an active Clear Estimates Cloud Browser session before the follow-up browser calls, which is only implied by "in the user's Clear Estimates Cloud Browser".

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 and the schema is an empty closed object, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a no-argument tool applies. Nothing in the description misdescribes inputs.

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 verb and resource (send a proposal in Clear Estimates) and immediately clarifies that the tool does not perform the send itself but "[r]eturns how to do it in Clear Estimates step by step (screens, buttons, fields)". That distinction from a genuine write action is stated, though the leading imperative sentence still reads at first glance as if the tool does the sending.

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 follow-on guidance: use the guidance returned here, "then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Clear Estimates Cloud Browser", and explains the rationale (no public API). It does not state when this tool should be skipped in favour of other Clear Estimates siblings such as clear_estimates_create_estimate, but the routing to the browser tool family is concrete.

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