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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, and the description is consistent with them ('opens nothing by itself'). It goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the return content (screens, buttons, fields), the fact that no browser action occurs, and the prerequisite that the follow-up happens in the user's Dext Cloud Browser. It stops short of stating whether a Dext account/session is required before calling or what happens if the user is not logged in.

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 behavior and the hand-off to browser tools are front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is good. The closing sentence about Dext having no public API, no API docs, and no MCP server is relevant anti-hallucination context but is phrased redundantly ('no public developer API and no API docs') and carries a dated verification stamp that reads as clutter.

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 guide tool, the description covers what the call returns, that it performs no side effects, and which tools continue the workflow. Adding a note on prerequisites (Dext login/session state) would make it fully self-sufficient.

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. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter guidance is needed or 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?

The description states a specific resource and scope (a receipt in the user's own Dext account) and clarifies the real behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the upload. It also routes the agent to the cotlet_browser_* tools for the actual action, which separates it from the browser primitives. It does not distinguish itself from the other upload-looking siblings (cotlet_upload_file, cotlet_browser_upload), which keeps it below 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?

Usage is explicit in the forward direction: call this first to get Dext-specific steps, then execute with cotlet_browser_* in the user's Dext Cloud Browser. The statement 'opens nothing by itself' sets a clear expectation about what this call will and won't do. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no comparison against cotlet_upload_file or cotlet_browser_upload.

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