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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds a useful behavioral fact: it 'opens nothing by itself', confirming this is a non-acting instruction step. It does not describe the shape or fidelity of the returned guide beyond 'screens, buttons, fields', nor any limits on scope.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and does real work. However, the trailing sentence about the official API is an awkward appendage with a questionable future date ('checked 31 Oct 2026'), and the middle clause is dense. The description reads as three spliced facts rather than a coherent sequence.

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, read-only instruction tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, that it performs no action, and how to act on the result via cotlet_browser_*. Missing detail on scope (all appointments versus a filtered set) and guide fidelity keeps it just below top marks.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description adds no parameter meaning, appropriately. It could note that account context comes from the session rather than arguments, but nothing is missing that an agent needs to invoke it.

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 name and title say 'List appointments in Boulevard', but the description reveals it actually 'Returns how to do it in Boulevard step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself'. That is a materially different function from listing data, and it is disclosed in a roundabout clause rather than stated upfront. An agent could easily misread this as a data-returning list 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?

The description explicitly directs the agent to 'do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Boulevard Cloud Browser', giving a concrete next step after this call. It also explains why browser automation is the route: the official API is Enterprise-only. It does not address when not to use this versus siblings like boulevard_book_appointment, but the follow-up guidance is clear.

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