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

Adds real value beyond the annotations by stating 'opens nothing by itself', which concretises readOnlyHint=true into a guarantee about browser side effects. The API note (no API, webhooks or Zapier) explains why the browser route is required. It stops short of saying whether the returned steps are verified live or cached, which matters for a hard-coded guide.

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 core is front-loaded well, but the middle sentence crams return contents, a no-side-effects clause and the handoff to cotlet_browser_* tools into one long compound. The pricing-page aside with a 'checked 9 Nov 2026' date is detailed in a way that reads as justification padding rather than agent-relevant guidance.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does: step-by-step screens, buttons and fields. It also forecloses the API path. What is missing is any note on how complete or current those steps are, or what the agent should do if a named button is not found.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. Notably the description offers no hint of how the booking details (customer, time, cleaner) are conveyed if not via parameters, but with an empty schema that is arguably outside this dimension's scope.

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 ('Book appointment in the user's own Klean CRM account') and immediately qualifies it: the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the booking. This separates it from the cotlet_browser_* siblings, which do the actual acting. The only blemish is that 'Book appointment' in name and title still reads as an action, so the agent must read to the second sentence to learn otherwise.

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 says what to do next: use the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Klean CRM Cloud Browser after this returns. That is a concrete alternative-plus-sequence. It does not address when not to use it, e.g. whether to check klean_crm_list_appointments first to avoid duplicate bookings.

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