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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by clarifying that this tool returns instructions and performs no browser action on its own, and by pointing to the execution tools. It does not cover failure modes, rate limits, or whether the returned steps vary by platform, which keeps it below 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the deliverable, followed by the execution path and the API rationale. The parenthetical '(checked 24 Oct 2026)' is a dated verification note that is somewhat extraneous and slightly stale-looking, but it does support the no-API claim.

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?

For a zero-parameter guidance tool with no output schema, the description says what comes back (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and what must happen next (drive the browser tools). What remains unstated is whether the steps are platform-specific or how long the returned guide stays valid, but the essential context is present.

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 is an empty object, so there is no parameter meaning to add; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent or discuss parameters.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Start booking in the user's own Omio account') and immediately states the actual deliverable: a step-by-step guide of screens, buttons and fields. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from action tools by saying it 'opens nothing by itself', so an agent can tell it apart from the cotlet_browser_* siblings without reading schemas.

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?

Gives a clear sequence: call this first to get the steps, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Omio Cloud Browser. It establishes context (user's own account, no official API) but does not explicitly address when to prefer it over omio_search_trips or omio_find_the_cheapest_day, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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