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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself,' so there is no contradiction. It adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: the return value is step-by-step instructions with screens, buttons, and fields, and the subsequent handoff to browser tools. It does not state the format of the returned text or how long/detailed it is.

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 critical fact — that this returns a procedure rather than invoice data — is buried after a sentence that sounds like a data listing. The API pricing paragraph is relevant context but verbose for a zero-parameter helper, and the parenthetical '(checked 28 Oct 2026)' adds little. Tightening the first two sentences would improve front-loading.

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 no-parameter, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it returns, what it does not do, and which tools to use next — enough to call it correctly. The only real gap is the concrete shape of the returned instructions and any caveats about account/login state in the Cloud Browser.

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 (empty object, additionalProperties false), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 makes clear that this tool does not fetch invoice data itself: it 'Returns how to do it in MarketMan step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself,' and names cotlet_browser_* as the tools that perform the action. That distinguishes it from the other marketman_list_* siblings, which presumably return data. The opening clause 'List invoices in the user's own MarketMan account' slightly oversells it as a data tool before the clarification arrives.

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 two-step workflow: call this to get the click-path, then execute it with cotlet_browser_* in the MarketMan Cloud Browser. It also explains why the official REST V3 API is not the route (partner key/password, read-only or paid add-on), which pre-empts an obvious alternative. It stops short of saying when NOT to call this (e.g., when the user just wants invoice totals rather than a procedure).

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