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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description is consistent with that: it explicitly says it opens nothing by itself and defers all action to browser tools. That is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations. The unrelated note about Holded's REST API being paid-plan-only adds no behavioral value and reads as filler.

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 two clauses are front-loaded and clear, but the third sentence about Holded's official API and paid plans is off-topic for invoking this tool and includes an odd 'checked 14 Oct 2026' date that could distract the agent. Roughly a third of the text does not earn its place.

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 and no output schema, the description needs to characterize what comes back, and it does so only at a high level ('step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'). It does not say whether a browser session must already be open, whether the response is text or structured, or what happens if the user lacks a paid plan.

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 and the schema coverage is complete, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 concrete outcome: it returns a step-by-step guide (screens, buttons, fields) for sending an invoice in the user's Holded account. It explicitly corrects the misleading name by saying it 'opens nothing by itself', so an agent knows this is guidance, not execution. It does not, however, contrast itself with holded_create_invoice or other Holded invoice tools.

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?

There is clear downstream guidance: after reading the steps, perform them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Holded Cloud Browser. What is missing is when-not-to-use and how this relates to sibling tools like holded_create_invoice, so the agent must infer routing.

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