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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that the tool produces instructions rather than data, and explicitly states it 'opens nothing by itself' — exactly the kind of clarification annotations cannot convey. It does not mention whether the guide is cached or varies by Mangomint UI version, which keeps it from 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?

The core behavior and the follow-up action are front-loaded, which is good. But the sentence structure is packed and metatextual (the 'official API: no public API... checked 11 Oct 2026' note is useful context but sits awkwardly at the end, and the date is oddly future-dated). Some tightening would help.

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 describing the return value, and it does: a step-by-step UI guide with screens, buttons and fields. For a zero-parameter, read-only tool this is close to sufficient; only the absence of guidance on how the guide relates to the sibling Mangomint action tools leaves a small 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the absence of parameters is consistent with a fixed guide-returning tool.

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 the actual behavior clearly enough: it returns step-by-step Mangomint UI instructions and 'opens nothing by itself'. However, this directly undercuts the name and title 'List appointments', which imply the tool retrieves appointment data. An agent reading only the name would expect results, not a how-to guide, so the purpose is stated but in tension with its own naming.

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 next step ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Mangomint Cloud Browser'), which is genuine workflow guidance. It does not say when to prefer this over a direct listing route or clarify its relationship to siblings like mangomint_book_appointment or mangomint_find_client, so usage is implied rather than fully framed.

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