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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that the tool "opens nothing by itself" — it returns guidance rather than performing browser actions. It also discloses why the official API route is unavailable, giving the agent the real reason the browser path is required. This is material context an agent cannot get from the annotations or the empty schema.

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 disclosure is front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is good. However, "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" is filler, and the trailing GraphQL API sentence is phrased as a checked-fact aside rather than a tight routing rule, adding length without much decision value.

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, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: what comes back (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields), that nothing is opened, and which tools execute the steps. It does not describe the shape of the returned guide (ordering, granularity), a minor gap for a guidance-only tool.

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 beyond what the empty schema already shows. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level value is added or 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 names the resource (unpaid invoices in the user's Jobber account) and explicitly states the actual return value: "Returns how to do it in Jobber step by step (screens, buttons, fields)". That resolves the tension with the tool name, which reads like a data-retrieval call. It stops short of a crisp one-line "this returns instructions, not invoice data" framing, so a reader still has to reconcile it with the name.

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 explicit downstream routing: use this for the steps, "then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Jobber Cloud Browser". It also explains why the official GraphQL API is not the path here (app registration required), which functions as a when-not rationale. No explicit condition for choosing this over, say, cotlet_app_guide is stated.

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