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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: 'opens nothing by itself' explicitly disclaims side effects, and it describes the shape of the return value ('screens, buttons, fields'), which the agent needs in order to chain into the browser tools. It stops short of covering auth/session preconditions.

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 crucial 'opens nothing by itself' correction are front-loaded, which is good. But the audience line 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler, and the closing sentence about Holded's REST API and paid plans is tangential to invoking this tool, adding length without changing how an agent would call it.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it produces, that it produces no side effects, and which tool family continues the workflow. It is only slightly incomplete in not stating that a Holded Cloud Browser session must already exist before the cotlet_browser_* steps can run.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description is consistent with that — it neither implies hidden inputs nor invents fields the schema does not have.

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 specific resource (an expense in Holded) and, crucially, discloses the actual mechanism: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the write. The only weakness is the leading verb 'Create expense', which momentarily reads as a mutation until the second sentence corrects it, and there is no explicit differentiation from sibling holded_create_invoice beyond the resource noun.

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 does state an explicit downstream workflow ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Holded Cloud Browser'), which tells the agent what to do after calling. However, it gives no when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. Holded must be connected in the Cloud Browser), and the API sentence is informational rather than a routing rule to an alternative tool.

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