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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by explicitly stating it 'opens nothing by itself' — which prevents an agent from assuming a side effect. It also adds non-obvious external context: MassageBook publishes no API/webhooks/Zapier, and reports are manual exports only, which explains why a browser fallback is required.

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 constraint ('returns steps, opens nothing, execute with cotlet_browser_*') is stated early, but the opening clause about ChatGPT/Claude/any AI agent is filler and the dated API note is dense prose appended to a two-sentence body. Content is useful but the packaging could be tightened.

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 the return value, and it does say it returns step-by-step screens/buttons/fields. What it omits is how the returned steps are scoped (which dates, which provider) and what the agent should do if the browser session is not already open — meaningful gaps for a guide tool with no structured output.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed; the only gap is that it never explains how the user's desired date range or staff filter is conveyed, which is implied to happen in the downstream browser steps.

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 concrete goal (free slots in the user's MassageBook account) but then undercuts it by saying the tool 'Returns how to do it in MassageBook step by step' and 'opens nothing by itself' — so it is really a guide-dispatch tool, not a slot finder. The name/title ('Find free slots') and the actual behavior diverge, and the reader has to reconcile them manually.

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?

There is a workflow hint: this returns instructions, then you execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the MassageBook Cloud Browser. However, nothing says when to pick this over sibling actions such as massagebook_book_appointment or massagebook_find_clients_due_back, and no preconditions (login state, open browser session) are stated.

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