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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's key added value is 'opens nothing by itself' and the fact that it returns procedural instructions rather than data. The note 'Bokadirekt's official API: Yes, but it only reads' adds useful capability context. It doesn't say anything about rate limits or what the guide looks like in shape, which keeps it from a 5.

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 information is front-loaded, but the sentences are run-ons with awkward splicing ('...opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools...') and a fragment-style trailing sentence ('Bokadirekt's official API: Yes, but it only reads.'). The content is worthwhile but the packaging is loose.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what it returns (step-by-step instructions) and how to continue (cotlet_browser_* tools). The main omission is the prerequisite that a Bokadirekt Cloud Browser session must exist before the follow-up tools will work.

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 baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, and there is nothing in the schema that the description could add meaning to.

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 states a specific resource (available times in the user's Bokadirekt account) and clarifies the actual mechanic: it returns a step-by-step guide of screens, buttons and fields rather than performing the lookup. That corrects the mild mismatch with the title 'Find available times'. It does not differentiate itself from the bokadirekt_* read siblings (list_bookings, list_waitlist), so it falls short of a 5.

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 the follow-up path explicitly ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Bokadirekt Cloud Browser'), which implies when to use it. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over bokadirekt_list_bookings or other siblings, and no prerequisites such as requiring an open Bokadirekt Cloud Browser session.

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