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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), the description adds real behavioral context: it opens nothing by itself, returns procedural instructions including screens, buttons and fields, and operates on the user's own logged-in account. The note that Omio has no public API for personal accounts explains why the browser path is required. It stops short of describing instruction format or failure modes when the user is not authenticated.

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 core action and followed by the clarifying mechanic and the workflow hand-off. The API-availability sentence with the verification date is tangential but short and justifies the design. No filler or repetition.

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 return-value burden and mostly discharges it by stating that instructions cover screens, buttons and fields. It also establishes the hand-off point to the browser tools. What is missing is what happens if the user is not signed in or the guide cannot be produced, which matters for an agent planning a multi-step flow.

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 declares an empty object with additionalProperties false, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Search trips in the user's own Omio account") and then clarifies the actual mechanic: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the search. That correction is essential because the name alone would mislead an agent into thinking a search executes. It also names the cotlet_browser_* family as the tools that do the real work, which separates it from the browser siblings.

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 clear workflow sequencing: call this first to get screens/buttons/fields, then execute with cotlet_browser_* in the user's Omio Cloud Browser. It does not state exclusions or when to prefer the other Omio-prefixed siblings (omio_start_booking, omio_find_the_cheapest_day), so the boundary with those is left to inference.

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