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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, destructive and openWorld flags, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: that nothing is opened as a side effect, that the return is step-by-step UI guidance rather than report data, and that the reason a browser path is required is the absence of a self-serve Booksy API for business owners.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying a distinct fact: what is returned, which tools continue the job, and why the API route is unavailable. The preamble 'Booksy's official API:' is redundant with the sentence that follows it, a minor blemish on otherwise tight structure.

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 and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so concretely ('screens, buttons, fields'). Combined with the annotation coverage and the explicit handoff to cotlet_browser_*, an agent has what it needs to call and follow up correctly.

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, which is the baseline-4 case. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly says nothing misleading about inputs.

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 the resource (Booksy reports) and, crucially, corrects the naive reading of the tool name by stating it 'Returns how to do it in Booksy step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' That distinguishes it from a data-returning tool, though the name 'read_reports' still pulls in the opposite direction and the description has to work to undo it.

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 two-step workflow: call this to get instructions, then 'do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Booksy Cloud Browser.' That is clear routing to the correct siblings. It does not, however, address when to prefer this over cotlet_app_guide, which appears to serve a similar instructional role.

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