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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the crucial fact the annotations cannot: the return value is a list of screens, buttons, and fields, and no action is taken server-side. That is the single most important behavioral disclosure for this tool. It does not mention authentication, plan gating for the browser session, or output size, leaving some room.

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 core (returns steps, takes no action, follow up with browser tools) is front-loaded and earns its place. However, "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" is filler, and the parenthetical vendor-survey detail ("checked 8 Nov 2026") is bulky for the operational value it provides.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and strong annotation coverage, the description supplies what is missing: what the return value looks like and what to do next. An agent can call it correctly and know how to continue. Minor gaps are the lack of guidance on what the returned steps look like structurally or how long they are.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so the schema baseline of 4 applies and the description need not add anything. Nothing in the description contradicts or muddies the empty parameter set.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Create bill in the user's own Salonist account") and immediately clarifies that what the tool actually returns is step-by-step guidance rather than performing the action. This distinguishes it from the cotlet_browser_* siblings that do the actual clicking. The only friction is the tension between the name/title promising creation and the body promising instructions, which costs a point.

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 hand-off: "opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Salonist Cloud Browser," which tells the agent both the tool's role and the follow-on step. The API-availability note explains why the browser route is used. It does not compare against cotlet_app_guide or other salonist_* siblings, so there is no explicit exclusion.

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