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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotated behavior: the return payload is step-by-step UI instructions (screens, buttons, fields) and the call has no side effects ("opens nothing by itself"), which prevents an agent from expecting an actual partner record to be created. The trailing note about Procountor's REST API requiring activation explains why browser automation is the route, though it is background rather than behavior.

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 purpose and the no-side-effect guarantee are front-loaded, which is correct. But the final sentence about Procountor's official REST API and write access is long, hedged, and dated ("checked 14 Oct 2026") — it reads as research notes rather than invocation guidance and could be compressed to a clause or dropped.

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 burden of explaining what comes back, and it does: step-by-step instructions covering screens, buttons and fields. It also points to the companion cotlet_browser_* tools that complete the task, so an agent knows the full loop. Minor gap: it does not say whether the returned steps are specific to the user's account configuration or generic.

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 (empty object, additionalProperties: false), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and the description does not confuse things by implying hidden 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 verb and resource ("Add partner in the user's own Procountor account") and immediately clarifies that the tool does not actually add anything: it "Returns how to do it in Procountor step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself." This resolves the apparent mismatch with the name, but the resolution comes one clause late, so an agent skimming only the first sentence could mistake it for a write action.

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 names the follow-on path explicitly — "then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Procountor Cloud Browser" — which tells the agent this is a step-zero guide in a two-tool workflow. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as cotlet_app_guide or procountor_create_invoice, and no preconditions (e.g., whether the browser session must already be open) are stated.

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