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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description earns credit by resolving the apparent conflict with the name: 'opens nothing by itself' tells the agent no order is actually created here. It also reveals that the second half of the job must happen in the user's Cloud Browser session. It omits prerequisites for that browser session (auth, login state), which keeps it from a 5.

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 operational sentences are front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing paragraph about Minuba's official REST API (41 resources, non-self-serve key, checked 31 Oct 2026) is background justification rather than invocation guidance, and the future-stamped date reads as clutter or a stale detail. It could be cut without losing anything an agent needs to call the tool.

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 right load: it says what comes back (ordered steps covering screens, buttons and fields) and what does not happen (no order is created, nothing is opened). The only gap is that it never states what the agent should do if the returned steps fail or if no Cloud Browser session 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, so there is nothing to disambiguate and baseline 4 applies. The description adds the useful implicit point that the user's own account context is what determines where the order would go, rather than any input argument.

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 verb and resource (create an order in the user's own Minuba account) and immediately clarifies that it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the write. That distinction separates it from the cotlet_browser_* action tools. It stops short of naming a sibling it is not, so it lands just under the top score.

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: call this first to get the screens/buttons/fields, then execute with cotlet_browser_* inside the user's Minuba Cloud Browser. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as the official REST API path or contrast itself with minuba_list_orders, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than exhaustive.

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