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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with and explains that: 'opens nothing by itself' plus the hand-off to browser tools tells the agent this call has no side effects and is a planning step. It adds real context beyond the annotations, namely the return shape (screens, buttons, fields) and the external-API limitation. It does not cover auth state requirements or what happens if the user's browser session is not logged in.

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 correction ('returns instructions, opens nothing by itself') is front-loaded, which is the right structure for a name that overpromises. However, 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is marketing filler that consumes space without informing tool selection, and the final 'Bokadirekt's official API: Yes, but it only reads.' is telegraphic to the point of being awkward.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers what an agent most needs: what is returned, that nothing is executed, and which tools perform the actual booking. The remaining gap is operational context, such as whether the returned steps depend on the user's account state or how to recover if the browser session is unauthenticated.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. Notably, the description implicitly frames the missing inputs (service, time, customer) as things resolved later through the browser tools rather than as call arguments.

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 makes clear what actually happens: it 'Returns how to do it in Bokadirekt step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself,' which corrects the misleading 'create_booking' name. It also names the resource (a booking in the user's own Bokadirekt account) and the follow-up tool family (cotlet_browser_*), so it is distinguishable from siblings like bokadirekt_find_available_times or bokadirekt_move_booking. The only cost is that an agent skimming the name alone could still misread this as an action-performing tool.

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 when/when-next: get the steps here, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Bokadirekt Cloud Browser. It also rules out the API route by noting the official API 'only reads,' implying no write alternative exists. It stops short of stating prerequisites, such as needing an active Bokadirekt session or having already chosen a service/time via bokadirekt_find_available_times.

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