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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is low. The description still adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: it performs no action itself, and it explains that Kitomba has no public API or webhooks, which justifies the browser-driven workflow and warns the agent not to expect a programmatic alternative.

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 and compact: goal, then return value, then how to execute, then why. The API paragraph is slightly tangential and the 'checked 8 Nov 2026' stamp is unverifiable filler, but no sentence is wasted.

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 still covers what is returned (step-by-step instructions with screens, buttons, fields), what it does not do (opens nothing, performs no action), and what to do next. That is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly and know which tool continues the job.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. It correctly avoids restating an empty schema.

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?

Names a concrete verb+resource (find free slots) scoped to the user's own Kitomba account, then disambiguates by stating the output is step-by-step guidance (screens, buttons, fields). The only weakness is the tension between the name/title promising slots and the body stating it returns instructions, which an agent must read to the second sentence to resolve.

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?

Explicitly states the follow-up path: this tool plans, then the agent acts with cotlet_browser_* tools, and 'opens nothing by itself' sets expectations. It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling like cotlet_app_guide or kitomba_book_appointment, so alternatives are only implied.

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