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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully confirms this ('opens nothing by itself'), so no contradiction exists. It also explains why the browser path is needed (Jobber's GraphQL API requires app registration), which is real context beyond the annotations. However, it says nothing about what the returned guidance looks like structurally or whether it is account-specific.

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 instruction is front-loaded and the browser-handoff sentence earns its place, but 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is marketing filler, and the API-registration aside (including a checked date) is tangential to invoking the tool. Tightening to two sentences would lose nothing.

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 guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what it produces (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and how to act on it. It could be more complete by sketching the return format, but nothing critical to correct invocation 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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 creating an invoice in the user's Jobber account, and explicitly says it 'opens nothing by itself'. This clarifies the apparent mismatch with the name 'create_invoice' and separates it from the cotlet_browser_* tools that perform the action. It falls short of 5 because the first sentence still reads like an action tool before the correction arrives.

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 a clear usage pattern: call this to get the steps, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Jobber Cloud Browser. What's missing is any exclusion guidance relative to siblings like jobber_create_quote or cotlet_app_guide, which an agent might reasonably consider instead.

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