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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the tool 'opens nothing by itself' and its output is procedural guidance that must be carried out in a separate browser session. That handoff requirement is the single most important thing an agent needs to know and is stated plainly.

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 workflow is front-loaded, but the description pads with filler ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') and a trailing sentence about sevdesk's official REST API with a check date that is irrelevant to invoking this tool. Trimming those would leave a tighter, stronger definition.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does: step-by-step screens, buttons and fields, plus the explicit note that nothing is executed. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could say whether the steps are sevdesk-version-specific or how to recover if a described screen is not found.

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; the baseline applies. No misleading parameter hints are given.

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 (book a voucher in the user's sevdesk account) and immediately corrects the impression the name creates by saying it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the booking. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like sevdesk_upload_receipt, but the 'guide, not action' framing is unambiguous.

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 screen/button/field steps, then execute them with cotlet_browser_* tools in the sevdesk Cloud Browser. There are no explicit exclusions or comparisons to other sevdesk tools (upload_receipt, create_invoice), so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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