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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: 'opens nothing by itself' prevents an agent from assuming a side effect occurred, and the note that Dubsado has no public API explains why browser automation is required. It does not describe output length or format limits.

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 critical correction, that it returns instructions and opens nothing, is front-loaded in the first two sentences. The trailing 'Dubsado's official API: Dubsado has no public API (checked 11 Oct 2026)' is slightly awkwardly worded but supplies a dated justification rather than padding.

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 a read-only annotation set, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, that nothing is mutated, and which tool family performs the actual action. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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; the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not mistakenly imply any inputs are needed, which is correct given the empty schema.

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 the resource (a Dubsado form) and immediately clarifies what the tool actually returns: 'Returns how to do it in Dubsado step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'. That resolves the tension between the 'send' verb in the name and the read-only behavior, though it never contrasts itself with siblings such as dubsado_send_invoice or cotlet_app_guide.

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 follow-on path: 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Dubsado Cloud Browser', which tells an agent this tool is the planning step and the browser tools are the execution step. It does not state when-not to use it, nor when another sibling like cotlet_app_guide would be preferred.

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