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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description corroborates this with "opens nothing by itself", which is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to know no state changes occur. It also discloses an environmental constraint - Odoo Online's external API is only on the Custom plan - which is behaviorally relevant and not captured by any annotation. No pagination or output-format detail, but none is needed for a zero-arg read.

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 essential content (what it returns, that it acts on nothing, and the follow-up browser tools) is front-loaded in the first sentence. The trailing sentence about Odoo's official API plans is tangential to invoking this tool and lengthens the definition beyond what the caller needs, though it does preempt an agent from promising API access.

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, no output schema, and a full annotation set, the description covers the critical gaps: what the return contains (screens, buttons, fields), that no side effects occur, and which tools to use next. It could note whether the steps are Odoo-version specific, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly signals no input is needed to invoke it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Send invoice in the user's own Odoo account") and immediately clarifies the real capability - it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the send. The name understates that it is a guidance tool, but the first sentence resolves that ambiguity, so an agent can distinguish it from action siblings like odoo_create_invoice.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step workflow: this tool returns the Odoo procedure, then the agent executes it with cotlet_browser_* tools. It never names the Odoo-specific siblings (odoo_create_invoice, odoo_register_payment) as alternatives, so there is no explicit exclusion guidance, which keeps it short of a 5.

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