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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with that by stating it 'opens nothing by itself'. It adds real value beyond the annotations by explaining the required two-step workflow (instructions here, browser tools elsewhere) and by documenting that Moxie publishes no API, webhooks or Zapier app — the reason browser automation is necessary. Minor gap: it does not say what happens if the user lacks an appointment or how long the returned guide is.

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 action and its output, followed by the execution path and the API-availability caveat. Every clause is doing work, though the 'checked 9 Nov 2026' timestamp and the Zapier-product aside are slightly tangential for a tool description.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return value, and it does: 'step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'. It also tells the agent what to do next with cotlet_browser_* tools, so the full call-and-follow-up cycle is covered.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies; nothing in the description misrepresents the empty input contract.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('reschedule appointment in the user's own Moxie account') and immediately clarifies what the tool actually produces: step-by-step instructions, not the reschedule itself. An agent can distinguish this from moxie_book_appointment by the verb alone, and the 'returns how to do it' clause removes any ambiguity about whether the action is executed.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: call this to get the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Moxie Cloud Browser. The condition that selects this tool over a browser-only path is explicit ('opens nothing by itself'). It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives (e.g. moxie_book_appointment) or stating exclusions, so it is not a full 5.

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