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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it opens nothing itself, returns step-by-step screen/button/field guidance, and requires the user's DINGG Cloud Browser for the actual action. Also discloses that DINGG has no public API, which explains why browser automation is needed. The annotations say readOnlyHint=true and the description is consistent with a non-mutating guide tool.

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?

Core purpose is front-loaded, but the sentence runs long and bundles three separate ideas (returns steps, doesn't open anything, then use browser tools). The API availability note, while useful, is appended and reads as boilerplate per tool copy.

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-param guide tool with no output schema, the description should explain the shape of the returned instructions (how the steps identify the booking to change, what the agent must gather first). It says 'screens, buttons, fields' but not that the agent must already know which appointment to reschedule, which is a meaningful 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?

No parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description compensates for the absence of inputs by making clear that selecting the appointment and target time happens during the browser execution phase, not via arguments to this call.

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 ('Reschedule appointment') plus scope ('in the user's own DINGG account'). However, the description is dominated by guidance about how to proceed rather than distinguishing it from sibling dingg_book_appointment or dingg_find_free_slots; the read-only vs. write distinction with those siblings is never addressed.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step workflow: call this to obtain step-by-step instructions, then execute with cotlet_browser_* tools in the DINGG Cloud Browser. It says what the tool does not do ('opens nothing by itself'), but never explicitly contrasts with dingg_book_appointment (e.g., when to book vs. reschedule) — that selection is left to inference.

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