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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent, reinforcing 'opens nothing by itself.' Beyond annotations it adds real value: it discloses the return content (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and explains why no direct API path exists. It stops short of describing format or length of the returned guide.

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 limitation ('opens nothing by itself') and the follow-up path are front-loaded in the first two sentences. There is minor filler in 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' and the trailing API note is a fragment, but both still carry useful information about the closed-world nature of the 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?

For a zero-parameter guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, that it has no side effects, and how to act on the result. What is missing is minor: the shape/length of the returned guide and any prerequisite about having a Yardbook Cloud Browser session open.

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 is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required, consistent with 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Add estimate in the user's own Yardbook account') and immediately corrects the misleading name by stating it 'Returns how to do it in Yardbook step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' That distinguishes it from the cotlet_browser_* action tools it points to. Slight friction remains because the tool name promises a write action while the tool is actually a guidance provider.

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 clearly states the workflow context: call this to get the procedure, 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Yardbook Cloud Browser.' That is an explicit alternative and sequencing hint. It does not address when to prefer this over sibling Yardbook tools such as yardbook_create_invoice, but the app-specific scope makes that inference easy.

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