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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces that with 'opens nothing by itself', so the agent understands no mutation occurs. It also discloses the return shape (screens, buttons, fields), which goes beyond the annotations, but says nothing about failure modes or limits when a screen/field is not found.

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 instruction is front-loaded, but phrases like 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' and 'Exact Online's official API: Yes' are filler that do not help the agent act. The run-on sentence chaining the guide and the browser handoff could be split for readability.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so adequately (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields). For a zero-parameter, read-only guidance tool this is nearly sufficient, missing only guidance on what to do if the described screen is not found.

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 is 4. The description does not wrongly imply hidden inputs, although it never says what identifying information the following browser steps will require.

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 verb and resource (create a relation in Exact Online) and immediately qualifies that the tool only produces step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. That clarification is essential because the tool name suggests a write action, but the intended purpose is discoverable.

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 explicitly says this tool opens nothing by itself and that the user should then perform the steps with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. This gives a clear next-step routing, though it does not state when not to use it (e.g., when an API-based create is preferred).

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