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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the return value is a procedural guide, no browser action is triggered, and the official API is read-only. This is consistent with readOnlyHint/idempotentHint and tells the agent what will actually come back.

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?

Reasonably short but the sentences are convoluted — the clause about opening nothing is spliced into the return-value sentence, and the trailing 'official API: Yes, but it only reads' reads as an afterthought rather than a front-loaded fact.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema guide tool, the description covers what it returns and how it fits into the browser-tool workflow. Only a clearer handoff to the specific next tool and sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

Zero parameters and full schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies.

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 the resource (customers in the user's own Bokadirekt account) and clarifies the actual mechanic: it returns step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields) rather than performing the listing. This corrects the misleading verb in the name, though it never contrasts itself with siblings like bokadirekt_list_bookings or cotlet_app_guide.

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 clear workflow routing: call this first to get the steps, then execute them with cotlet_browser_* tools, and explicitly notes it opens nothing by itself. It stops short of stating exclusions or when a sibling guide tool would be preferable.

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