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, and nothing here contradicts them. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it 'opens nothing by itself', meaning no account access or side effects occur, and it explains the handoff to browser tools. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned instructions or any limits on how current they are.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the key caveat and the next-step handoff. The trailing note about no public supplier API (checked 11 Oct 2026) is slightly tangential but does justify why a step-by-step guide exists at all.

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, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description carries the necessary context: what it does, that it has no side effects, and which tools to use next. Only the structure of the returned instructions (one screen? full flow?) is left unspecified, which is a minor gap.

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 there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already states. Baseline of 4 applies; no param-related meaning is added or needed.

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 ('List bookings') and scopes it to 'the user's own Civitatis account', then immediately clarifies that the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the listing itself. The name/purpose tension is resolved by the description, but it never names a sibling (e.g. civitatis_get_booking_details) to differentiate from, 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?

Provides a clear workflow: call this first to get the how-to, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Civitatis Cloud Browser. It does not explain when to prefer this over civitatis_list_payouts or civitatis_get_booking_details, so there are no exclusions or explicit alternative routing.

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