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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotent, and the description reinforces this with the concrete fact that the tool 'opens nothing by itself' — a meaningful clarification for a name that sounds like a write action. It adds context beyond the annotations: no public LawnBoss API, webhooks, or Zapier app, with only QuickBooks and Stripe integrations, which explains why browser automation is 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 key fact — that it returns instructions rather than performing the action — is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the browser-tool handoff immediately after. The final sentence on API availability is longer than strictly necessary but earns its place by preempting an agent's attempt to find an API 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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it describes the return content (steps, screens, buttons, fields), states the side-effect profile, and names the follow-up tools. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and act on the result.

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 for a parameterless tool applies. The description does not need to explain argument formats and correctly omits them.

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 resource and outcome: it returns step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields) for sending an invoice in LawnBoss, and explicitly says it opens nothing itself. This resolves the ambiguity in the name 'send_invoice', which could otherwise be read as performing the send. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling cotlet_app_guide, which likely serves a similar instructional role.

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 workflow condition: call this to learn the steps, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's LawnBoss Cloud Browser. That names the alternative tools and the handoff point. It stops short of saying when to prefer cotlet_app_guide or cotlet_apps instead, so the sibling routing is incomplete.

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