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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the output is a screen/button/field walkthrough, the tool opens nothing itself, and Joist has no public API or webhooks. This aligns with readOnlyHint=true and non-destructive annotations rather than contradicting them. It does not describe failure modes if the user's account state differs, but the core disclosure is strong.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the crucial caveat that it only returns instructions. The closing API/webhook note is a slight tangent but earns its place by explaining why browser automation is required; the dated 'checked 26 Oct 2026' phrasing reads oddly but is short.

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 must characterize the return value, and it does: a step-by-step Joist walkthrough with screens, buttons and fields. It also names the downstream tools needed to finish the job. A little more on what the guide looks like in failure or ambiguous cases would complete it.

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 schema semantics to supplement; baseline is 4. The description does correctly signal that account/user context is implicit in the session rather than passed in.

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 (estimate in the user's own Joist account) and then clarifies the real behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the creation. The opening clause largely restates the tool name and momentarily suggests an actual create action, but the following sentence resolves that.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this first, then execute the steps with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Joist Cloud Browser. That is a clear when-and-how pairing. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., when to prefer the sibling create_estimate, update_estimate, or a non-Joist path).

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