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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: it performs no action, opens no browser, and returns a step-by-step procedural answer covering screens, buttons and fields. The note about the partner API being restricted explains why the browser path is used.

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 action and the key caveat that it "opens nothing by itself," which is the single most decision-relevant fact. The closing API/sandbox note is somewhat tangential to invoking the tool, but it is one sentence and preempts a reasonable agent question about why the official API is not used.

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, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (ordered steps with screens, buttons, fields) and what to do next (cotlet_browser_* tools). The only gap is that it does not characterize the response's shape or length beyond "step by step," which is minor 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 there is no parameter meaning to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed to obtain the walkthrough.

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 ("Share estimate") and then clarifies the actual behavior: it "Returns how to do it in Tekmetric step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself." That clarification is essential because the opening phrasing suggests it performs the share action itself; the correction is present but comes after a potentially misleading lead.

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 states the workflow explicitly: call this for the how-to, "then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Tekmetric Cloud Browser," which routes the agent away from expecting this tool to act. It does not name a when-not condition or point to sibling Tekmetric tools like tekmetric_get_repair_order, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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