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

Adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: the tool 'opens nothing by itself', which reinforces and explains readOnlyHint=true, and it discloses the return shape (screens, buttons, fields) so the agent won't expect structured receivable amounts. The API-partner note preempts a wrong assumption about an alternative access route. Missing only session prerequisite and whether results are cached or stale.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource, which is good, but the lead sentence is padded with 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' — pure marketing filler that costs attention without changing behavior. The final API caveat is useful but tacked on and could be one clause shorter.

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 guide tool with no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent must know: what comes back (a procedure, not data) and what to do next (browser tools). A slight gap remains on whether the ResMan Cloud Browser must already be open before calling.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description contradicts the empty schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (list aged receivables) scoped to the user's own ResMan account. It also corrects the initial impression by clarifying it returns step-by-step instructions rather than data, so an agent is not misled by the 'list' verb. It does not distinguish itself from the ResMan siblings (list_leases, list_work_orders, get_resident_ledger), which are plausible near-neighbors for receivable-style questions.

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?

Explicitly states the follow-up path: this tool returns the procedure, then the agent should act using cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's ResMan Cloud Browser — that is real routing guidance to concrete siblings. It also rules out the API path by noting only approved Integration Partners have one. No explicit 'do not use this for X' exclusion, and it doesn't say whether a browser session must be opened first.

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