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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it 'opens nothing by itself', it returns step-by-step UI guidance, and the real action must be delegated to browser tools. It does not describe the shape/length of the returned instructions, which is the main remaining gap.

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 behavior is front-loaded and clear, but 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is promotional filler that adds nothing for tool selection, and the dated API parenthetical ('checked 8 Nov 2026') is tangential detail. The useful constraint that it opens nothing by itself is buried in the middle of a long sentence.

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, annotation-covered tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: it is a read-only instruction generator, not a mutation, and the actual change happens through browser tools. The one missing piece is any sense of what the returned instructions look like structurally, which matters since no output schema exists.

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, which is the baseline-4 case. No parameter meaning needs to be conveyed and the description correctly implies no input is required from the caller.

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 (a task in the user's Markate account) and clarifies an important nuance the name obscures: the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. It does not differentiate against the other markate_* siblings (create_estimate, create_invoice), but it does name the cotlet_browser_* family as the follow-up path.

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 first to get screens/buttons/fields, then execute with cotlet_browser_* in the Markate Cloud Browser. It also explains why the direct API route is unavailable (key gated behind an approval form), which justifies using this tool. It lacks an explicit 'do not use when' statement or guidance versus the other markate_* write tools.

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