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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real context by stating it "opens nothing by itself," that output is a procedural guide, and that MassageBook has no API/webhooks so browser automation is the only path. It stops short of describing the exact return shape or whether a Cloud Browser session must already be active.

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 clarification ("opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools") is buried mid-sentence after a misleading lead, and the trailing API/webhooks/Zapier sentence is supporting rationale rather than call-relevant instruction. It is not bloated, but the front-loading is poor for a definition whose whole job is to prevent misuse.

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, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs: it is a read-only guide source, it performs no action, and the follow-up must be done through browser tools. Only minor gaps remain, such as output format specifics or prerequisite session state.

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 and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless, context-free call.

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 eventually makes clear that the tool returns a step-by-step guide ("Returns how to do it in MassageBook step by step (screens, buttons, fields)") rather than client records, but it opens with "List clients in the user's own MassageBook account," which describes the downstream browser action, not this tool's output. An agent must read the whole passage to learn it is a guide-retrieval tool, and no sibling (e.g. massagebook_find_clients_due_back) is named for contrast.

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 useful workflow cue — call this, then perform the steps "with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's MassageBook Cloud Browser" — which implies when to use it. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use condition and no differentiation from other massagebook_* client tools, so the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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