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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description explains why: it "opens nothing by itself" and only returns screens, buttons and fields. That confirms and enriches the read-only annotation with the actual output shape (a procedural guide), which the agent needs in order to plan the two-step flow. It does not describe error cases or what happens if the user lacks permissions, keeping it below 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 workflow is front-loaded in the first two sentences, but the phrasing "Returns how to do it in Clio step by step" is awkward and the trailing fragment "Clio's official API: Yes." adds little usable meaning without context. Some tightening would improve it.

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, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential facts: it does not act, it returns UI steps, and a browser toolset performs the action. The only gap is that the form of the returned steps (and any failure modes such as missing permissions) is left implicit.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level detail is missing.

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 ("Create task in the user's own Clio account") and immediately clarifies that the tool itself returns a step-by-step guide rather than performing the action. The scope (own account) distinguishes it from account-wide operations, though the headline verb "Create" is slightly at odds with the read-only instruction-returning behavior until the second sentence resolves 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?

Explicitly tells the agent what to do next: take the returned steps and execute them with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Clio Cloud Browser. This is a clear workflow handoff, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or naming of alternative Clio task tools to avoid.

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