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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns step-by-step guidance (screens, buttons, fields) and explicitly 'opens nothing by itself'. This is consistent with the annotations and helps an agent understand the tool's output nature.

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 description is front-loaded with the main action, but it repeats 'Lexware Office (lexoffice)' four times and includes tangential information about the official API and the date it was checked. The phrase 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is also unnecessary. It is somewhat wordy and could be tightened.

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 guide tool with annotations covering safety, the description provides enough context: what it returns (step-by-step instructions with screens, buttons, fields) and what it does not do (opens nothing). It also directs the agent to the execution tools. No output schema exists, but the return value is described adequately.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and needs no further explanation. The description does not need to describe parameters and does not confuse the agent about inputs.

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 (Lexware Office receipt upload) and clarifies the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the upload. It distinguishes itself from the cotlet_browser_* tools by saying it opens nothing and points to them for execution. However, the name and title ('Upload receipt') are slightly misleading, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

The description explicitly says to use cotlet_browser_* tools after getting the instructions, giving a clear next step. But it does not explain when to use this tool versus sibling tools like cotlet_app_guide, cotlet_upload_file, or cotlet_browser_upload. Usage is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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