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

The description corroborates the annotations by stating it 'opens nothing by itself', consistent with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. It adds real context about the API availability constraint that motivates the tool's design. However, it does not describe what the returned steps contain in any detail beyond 'screens, buttons, fields', nor whether the guidance could vary by appointment type or account.

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, with the core purpose and the read-only caveat front-loaded before the workflow instruction. The parenthetical about Appointy's Enterprise plan and the 'checked 8 Nov 2026' date are mildly extraneous but justify the tool's existence rather than pad the text.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description supplies what is missing: what the tool returns (procedural steps) and what the agent must do next. The only gap is detail about what those returned steps look like in practice.

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 the schema-coverage baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed, though it never notes that identifiers such as the appointment must be supplied through the subsequent browser interactions.

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 ('Reschedule appointment in Appointy') and immediately clarifies the deliverable: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. This distinguishes it functionally from the browser siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with appointy_book_appointment or appointy_cancel_appointment.

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 an explicit workflow chain: call this to get the steps, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools. It also explains why this approach exists (Appointy's private API is Enterprise-only). It stops short of stating when not to use it, e.g. if another sibling already handles the change.

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