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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the return value (screens, buttons, fields), the zero-side-effect behavior, and the required follow-up browser tools. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false rather than contradicting them. It could have said more about the Cloud Browser prerequisite (e.g., session/auth requirements).

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the key clarification that it only returns instructions; sentences are information-dense with little waste. The API/Enterprise aside is relevant but adds a slightly long clause at the end.

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 output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden and does so: it explains what is returned and how to act on it. A minor gap is that it never says where the booking details (client, date, service) come from, given the empty input schema.

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 parameter baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the return contract instead of parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Book appointment in the user's own Boulevard account') and immediately clarifies the tool's real nature: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the booking. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like boulevard_book_from_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?

Clearly explains the workflow: this tool produces a guide, it 'opens nothing by itself', and the agent must then use cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Cloud Browser. It also notes the official Enterprise-only API as a reason to prefer this path. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus reschedule/waitlist siblings.

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