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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds meaningful context beyond them: 'opens nothing by itself' (the tool does not execute the browser action) and that Yardbook has no public API or developer docs, which explains why a step-by-step guide is the only path.

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 core point (returns steps, opens nothing, then use browser tools) is front-loaded and clear, but the phrasing wanders: 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler, and 'Yardbook's official API: Yardbook has no public API' is redundant with the dated check appended awkwardly.

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, guide-returning tool with no output schema, the description covers enough: what it returns (screens, buttons, fields), that it performs no action, and the handoff to browser tools. It could say more about how the guide is scoped to the specific account or invoice set.

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 beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies no input is required.

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?

Names a specific resource (unpaid invoices) tied to the user's own Yardbook account and distinguishes the tool's role from the cotlet_browser_* family. Slightly muddled by the verb 'list' when the description later clarifies the tool only returns step-by-step instructions rather than invoice data.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent what to do next: use the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Yardbook Cloud Browser after reading the steps. It gives clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of sibling Yardbook tools like yardbook_list_customers.

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