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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description's most useful addition is "opens nothing by itself", which confirms the tool has no side effects despite a name that sounds like a data query. It does not describe what the returned steps look like or how exhaustive they are.

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 operative content is one sentence; the remaining half is an off-topic digression about e-conomic's REST API, AppSecretToken and AgreementGrantToken that has no bearing on invoking a zero-parameter instruction tool. That middle section buries the actionable guidance and should be cut.

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 full annotation coverage, the description needs only to say what comes back and what to do next — and it does both at a high level. However, it never indicates the granularity or format of the returned steps, and the API tangent dilutes rather than completes the picture.

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 no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents the input surface.

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 a specific verb and resource ("list unpaid invoices in the user's own e-conomic account") and then clarifies the actual mechanism: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than data. That correction of the misleading name is valuable, though the reader must get past the first clause to learn the tool is an instructional guide, not a data lister.

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 sketches a workflow: get the steps here, then execute with cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. But it never states when to choose this over the sibling e_conomic_* tools (add_customer, book_invoice, create_draft_invoice), nor any exclusions or preconditions such as being logged into e-conomic.

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