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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, it discloses meaningful behavior: it 'opens nothing by itself', returns screens/buttons/fields as a procedure, and requires a separate browser session to actually execute. The note that Tradify publishes no API or webhooks explains why the browser fallback exists. It does not describe the format or granularity of the returned steps, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the critical caveat that it opens nothing itself. The phrasing 'Returns how to do it in Tradify step by step' is slightly awkward and the dated API-check parenthetical is marginal, but nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by saying the return is a step-by-step procedure of screens, buttons and fields. Combined with the explicit handoff to cotlet_browser_* and the zero-parameter schema, an agent has enough to call it and use the result. It could say more about how much detail the steps contain.

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 semantics to add; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool is parameterless by framing it as a fixed how-to lookup for unpaid invoices in the caller's own account.

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 ('List unpaid invoices') and scopes it to 'the user's own Tradify account'. It also discloses that the tool does not itself list anything but returns a step-by-step how-to, which is a subtle but important reframing of the purpose. It does not differentiate from the sibling list_invoices, so it falls short of a 5.

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 follow-on path ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Tradify Cloud Browser'), which tells the agent how the output is consumed. However, it never says when to prefer this over the sibling list_invoices or when-not to use it, and the relationship between the guide tool and the direct-action tools is left implicit.

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