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

Discloses the non-obvious behavior that resolves the apparent conflict between a "book" tool and readOnlyHint: "opens nothing by itself" and "Returns how to do it ... step by step (screens, buttons, fields)". It also names the downstream tools needed to actually complete the action, which annotations cannot convey.

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 first two sentences are load-bearing and front-loaded, but the closing line about Acuity's REST API and "no official MCP server (checked 17 Oct 2026)" is tangential to selection or invocation. The "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" phrasing is promotional filler that dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

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, non-mutating tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is returned and how to proceed afterward, which is the essential information. It omits prerequisites (account already open/logged in, which browser tab) and what to do if the returned steps cannot be executed.

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 schema has zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case, and the description confirms the tool takes no input by describing a zero-argument guide-returning call. It stops short of explaining how appointment details (date, type, client) are conveyed, which an agent might reasonably wonder given the tool's name.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Book appointment in the user's own Acuity Scheduling account") and immediately clarifies the actual output: a step-by-step guide rather than a booking action. The verb distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_appointment, reschedule_appointment, and check_availability without any ambiguity.

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?

Gives a clear two-step workflow: call this to get the steps, then execute them with cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. It does not state exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., check availability first, or that rescheduling should use a sibling tool), 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.