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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'opens nothing by itself' is consistent with that rather than contradictory. It adds real context: the return is step-by-step UI instructions, and the note about Kickserv's XML API being premium-only explains why browser automation is the path. However, it does not describe the shape of the returned steps or any limits on their fidelity, so it adds moderate rather than rich behavioral detail.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the key correction that nothing is actually opened, followed by the handoff to cotlet_browser_* tools. The API/pricing aside with the '(checked 11 Oct 2026)' parenthetical is tangential and slightly noisy, though it does justify the browser route.

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 carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so at a high level (screens, buttons, fields) plus the required follow-up action. What an agent needs to call it and proceed is present; only the precise return format is left unspecified.

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; the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain inputs, and it correctly implies no arguments are required.

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 the specific resource (a job in the user's Kickserv account) and, crucially, corrects the misleading name by saying it 'Returns how to do it in Kickserv step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' An agent can tell this is an instruction-generator, not a job-creating mutation. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like kickserv_create_estimate, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 workflow: call this to get the steps, 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Kickserv Cloud Browser.' That is actionable when-to-use guidance tied to a concrete next step. It lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer a direct API path or a sibling tool), which keeps it below a 5.

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