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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond them: that the tool performs no external action ("opens nothing by itself") and that the return value is human-readable step-by-step guidance covering screens, buttons and fields. It stops short of describing output format or length limits, but no output schema exists so this is a solid contribution.

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 workflow and the no-side-effect guarantee are front-loaded and useful, but "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" is filler and the trailing fragment "iFirma's official API: Yes." is dangling and ambiguous — it is unclear whether it means the tool calls the API, that the API supports this operation, or something else.

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, read-only guide tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, what it does not do, and what to do next. It could add prerequisites such as needing an active browser session and a connected iFirma account, but nothing essential is missing.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies no input is required to obtain the guidance.

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 ("Add cost in the user's own iFirma account") and then immediately corrects an agent's likely assumption by stating it "Returns how to do it in iFirma step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself." That resolves the name/behavior mismatch well, though it never distinguishes itself from the generic sibling cotlet_app_guide, which an agent may see as a competing guide tool.

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 an explicit two-step workflow: call this to get instructions, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's iFirma Cloud Browser. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., versus cotlet_app_guide) or which specific browser tool to start with, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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