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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, but the description adds real value: it states the tool opens nothing by itself (no side effects) and returns screen/button/field-level instructions. It also explains why no API path exists, which preempts an agent hunting for a direct integration. Return payload shape and length are not described, keeping this short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and behavior, followed by the handoff and the API rationale. Minor filler in the 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' clause, but every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, side-effect profile, and the follow-up action, which is enough to invoke it correctly. The only open question is how the returned guide is tailored without any inputs, which is not addressed.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description is consistent with a no-argument call, though it does not explain how the returned guidance is scoped to the user's specific availability request.

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 names a specific verb and resource (update availability in the user's Little Hotelier account) and immediately clarifies the non-obvious part: this tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the change. That distinguishes it from a pure mutation tool and from the browser siblings it hands off to. It does not explicitly contrast with close siblings such as little_hotelier_update_rates, leaving that differentiation to the names.

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 a clear two-phase workflow: call this first to get the how-to, then execute with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Little Hotelier Cloud Browser. That tells the agent when to reach for it and what to do next. It stops short of naming explicit exclusions or alternative tools for adjacent tasks (e.g., rates vs availability).

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