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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description corroborates this by stating it 'opens nothing by itself', resolving the apparent conflict between the mutation-sounding name and the read-only annotation. It also adds useful operational context (Fresha lacks a public API and developer docs, verified 11 Oct 2026). It does not describe the shape or length of the returned instructions.

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?

It is front-loaded: the action and the fact that it only returns instructions come first, before the browser hand-off. The final sentence is slightly redundant in phrasing ('Fresha's official API: Fresha has no public API...') but carries real information about why the browser path is required.

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 what comes back, and it does ('step by step, screens, buttons, fields'). It also points to the follow-up tools needed to actually complete the action. What is missing is any guidance on what the agent must know beforehand (which appointment, desired new time) given the absence of parameters.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation to add, and the baseline would normally be high. However, the description never explains why a reschedule tool takes no appointment identifier or new time, leaving the agent to infer that the output is generic guidance applied later through the browser tools. That missing framing is the one substantive gap.

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 states a concrete verb and resource (reschedule an appointment in the user's own Fresha account) and immediately clarifies that the tool returns a step-by-step guide rather than performing the change. That clarification is essential and well placed. It does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling reschedule_appointment, so the agent must rely on naming conventions alone to separate them.

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 workflow: call this first to obtain the Fresha screens/buttons/fields, then execute via cotlet_browser_* tools in the Fresha Cloud Browser, and it notes Fresha has no public API, which explains why a browser path exists. There are no explicit exclusions (for example, when the appointment cannot be changed or when a different Fresha tool should be used instead).

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