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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is cheap. The description still adds real value beyond them by clarifying the side-effect boundary ("opens nothing by itself") and specifying the shape of the response (ordered steps with screens, buttons, fields), which annotations cannot convey.

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 opening sentence and the step-return / no-side-effect clause are front-loaded and useful. The trailing "sevdesk's official API: sevdesk has a REST API (checked 14 Oct 2026)" does not earn its place for a zero-parameter browser-guidance tool and adds ambiguity about whether an API path exists alongside the browser flow.

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 describing the return value, and it does so (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) plus the hand-off to browser tools. It stops short of stating prerequisites or what happens if the user is not signed in, which is the main remaining gap.

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 and the baseline of 4 applies. The description also implies the input is supplied implicitly through the referenced flow rather than as arguments, which matches 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?

The description makes clear this returns step-by-step instructions ("screens, buttons, fields") for uploading a receipt in sevdesk, and explicitly negates the naive reading of the name by stating it "opens nothing by itself." The verb/resource are specific, though the tool name (upload_receipt) still suggests it performs the upload, which the description has to work against.

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 concrete follow-up path ("then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's sevdesk Cloud Browser"), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like cotlet_app_guide or sevdesk_book_voucher, and gives no prerequisites (e.g., the user being signed in to sevdesk) or exclusions.

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