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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this by stating it opens nothing itself and merely returns procedural text. It also discloses the shape of the return value (screens, buttons, fields), which is useful beyond the annotations. The trailing fragment "iFirma's official API: Yes" is ambiguous and adds noise rather than 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 message is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the text is a run-on with several clauses stitched together by semicolons. The standalone fragment "iFirma's official API: Yes." does not earn its place and leaves the reader guessing what is being asserted.

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 input schema, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description carries the remaining burden well by describing what it returns and what it does not do. What an agent needs to call it correctly is present. It could be stronger by explicitly stating that the returned steps must be executed via the browser tools rather than assumed to be already applied.

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 meaning the description needs to supply; baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description does not need to explain arguments, and it does not attempt to invent any.

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 outcome: it returns step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields) for sending to KSeF in iFirma. It also corrects the misleading name/title by clarifying that the tool "opens nothing by itself," so an agent can tell this is a guide, not an action. The only weakness is that the tool name says "send" while the description says it does not send, which takes a sentence to unwind.

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 usage chain: call this to get the steps, then perform them with the cotlet_browser_* tools. That routes the agent correctly without inference. It does not differentiate from the sibling cotlet_app_guide, which likely serves a similar instructional role, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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