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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this explicitly with 'opens nothing by itself'. It also discloses the shape of what comes back (screens, buttons, fields), which goes beyond what the annotations provide. The trailing 'iFirma's official API: Yes.' is cryptic and adds little behavioural clarity.

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 clarification ('returns how to do it step by step ... opens nothing by itself') is front-loaded and earns its place, but the second half is a run-on that stacks the browser-tool handoff and the odd 'iFirma's official API: Yes.' fragment. That final fragment is unexplained and reads as noise rather than information.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so ('returns how to do it in iFirma step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'). What is missing is how this relates to the adjacent ifirma_issue_invoice tool, but for a guidance-only tool the definition is otherwise sufficient.

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 no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden; the empty object schema is self-explanatory. The description correctly implies nothing is needed from the caller before invocation.

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 and, crucially, clarifies the counterintuitive behaviour: it returns step-by-step instructions on how to send an invoice in iFirma rather than sending anything. This corrects the misleading name/title ('Send invoice'), so an agent can predict the output. It does not differentiate this from the sibling ifirma_issue_invoice, which sounds very similar.

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 follow-up routing ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's iFirma Cloud Browser'), which is genuinely useful sequencing guidance. However, it never says when to choose this over ifirma_issue_invoice or ifirma_send_to_ksef, and there are no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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