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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with the important qualifier 'opens nothing by itself,' which tells an agent no side effect occurs. It also discloses an access constraint (a ShootProof OAuth client ID requires emailing support), though that detail is tangential and could make an agent wonder whether credentials are needed for this tool.

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 key facts are front-loaded: what it returns, that it opens nothing itself, and which sibling tools carry out the action. The final sentence about ShootProof's official OAuth API — including a future 'checked 8 Nov 2026' date — is tangential and adds clutter without helping an agent invoke this tool.

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, no output schema, and safety fully covered by annotations, the description supplies the missing pieces: return content (screens, buttons, fields) and the follow-up workflow. The only weakness is the API paragraph, which muddies whether external credentials or setup matter here.

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 the schema carries no semantic burden and nothing needs explaining in prose. The description correctly describes only inputs to the downstream browser step, not to this call.

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 ('send invoice in the user's own ShootProof account') and immediately clarifies the true behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the send. That distinguishes it from the cotlet_browser_* siblings, which are explicitly named as the execution counterpart.

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 clear sequencing guidance: call this to get the screens/buttons/fields, then execute with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's ShootProof Cloud Browser. No explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion against shootproof_send_contract is stated, but the action is unambiguous enough that confusion is unlikely.

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