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

With readOnlyHint=true already supplied, the description adds substantive context: the return value is procedural guidance, no side effects occur, and execution requires a separate browser tool family. It also discloses why no API path exists (no public Dubsado API, checked 11 Oct 2026). It omits prerequisites such as an authenticated Cloud Browser session and what happens if none exists.

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 key fact that this tool only returns instructions arrives in the second sentence, after a phrasing that reads like it performs the creation, which is a mild front-loading failure. The trailing 'Dubsado's official API: Dubsado has no public API (checked 11 Oct 2026)' is a clunky fragment with a redundant label and a date stamp. Every sentence is relevant, but the packaging is loose.

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 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 points to the execution path and explains the absence of an API. Prerequisites for the browser session are the main missing piece.

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 and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 makes clear that this tool does not create anything itself but returns step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields), and it explicitly states 'opens nothing by itself,' which corrects the misleading 'create_project' name. It also names the sibling family (cotlet_browser_*) that performs the actual work. It does not differentiate from the other dubsado_* siblings (send_invoice, record_payment), which an agent must also understand.

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 workflow: get instructions here, then execute with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Dubsado Cloud Browser. That is actionable routing. It does not state when NOT to use it or how it relates to the other dubsado_* tools, so alternatives are only partially covered.

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