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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself', which is the key thing an agent needs to know. It adds real context beyond annotations: what the output looks like (ordered UI steps) and the prerequisite of a DusterBook Cloud Browser session. The API/webhook/Zapier aside is background rather than behavior.

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 purpose and the 'opens nothing' caveat are front-loaded, which is good. But the second sentence is a run-on chaining three separate ideas, and the closing sentence about DusterBook publishing no API, webhooks or Zapier app, with an audit date, is tangential for a tool that returns UI instructions.

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 params and no output schema, the description carries the burden and does so adequately: it says what comes back (ordered steps) and what to do next (cotlet_browser_* calls). A brief note on how the returned steps are structured or scoped would close the remaining gap.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. It implicitly explains why no inputs exist: the tool returns guidance rather than performing the write, so invoice data is entered later through the browser tools.

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 concretely what the tool returns: a step-by-step guide (screens, buttons, fields) for creating an invoice in DusterBook, and explicitly that it opens nothing itself. That resolves the tension between the name 'create_invoice' and the read-only behavior. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling dusterbook_create_quote, which shares this same guide pattern.

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 the workflow explicitly: call this to get the steps, then carry them out with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's DusterBook Cloud Browser. That is clear when-and-how guidance. It stops short of saying when to prefer the direct API or a sibling guide tool, and offers no exclusions.

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