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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself' and specifies the return content (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields). It also explains why browser automation is needed (no self-serve API key found), which is genuine context beyond the annotations. Auth details and rate limits remain unstated.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the return behavior, then the follow-up mechanism. The closing note about the official API is somewhat tangential in phrasing but earns its place by justifying the browser-based workflow. Slightly dense sentence structure with multiple clauses joined by semicolons.

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, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the remaining burden is explaining what the call yields and what to do next — both are stated explicitly. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and act on the result.

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; the schema is empty and fully consistent with a no-argument guidance call. Baseline 4 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?

Names a specific verb+resource (add appointment add-on) and immediately clarifies the actual behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. It distinguishes itself from the browser-execution path by naming cotlet_browser_* tools, though it does not differentiate itself from siblings like paired_plus_create_appointment or paired_plus_configure_service_series.

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 workflow: call this to learn the screens/buttons/fields, then execute with cotlet_browser_* in the Cloud Browser. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or a named sibling alternative, but the handoff sequence makes the intended usage unambiguous.

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