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 reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself', so an agent cannot mistake it for a write action. It adds useful context beyond the annotations — that the response is a step-by-step screen/button/field walkthrough, and why the official GraphQL API is not an alternative (app registration required).

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 ('returns step by step... opens nothing by itself') is front-loaded, but the sentence is padded with audience boilerplate ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') and a dated GraphQL API aside that is tangential to calling the tool. The key behavioral guarantee is buried mid-sentence inside the first line.

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 guidance tool with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: what is returned (an ordered screen/field procedure), that nothing is executed, and which tools carry out the actual work. It stops short of describing how the returned steps are structured or whether the guide is app-version-specific.

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; the description correctly presents this as a no-argument instruction-fetching call and there is nothing in the empty schema that needs compensating for.

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 explicitly corrects the misleading name by stating it 'Returns how to do it in Jobber step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself' — a specific verb (returns instructions) and resource (send-invoice workflow). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like jobber_create_invoice or jobber_list_unpaid_invoices, so an agent must infer the split.

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 usable workflow — call this for the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Jobber Cloud Browser — which tells the agent what to do after the call. There is no statement of when NOT to use it (e.g., versus jobber_create_invoice for programmatic creation) and no prerequisites or account-scoping conditions.

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