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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint false. The description adds crucial context beyond that: it returns only instructions and 'opens nothing by itself,' and the actual action must be performed with cotlet_browser_* tools. It also discloses the API-key limitation, though that is tangential.

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 behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the description runs long and the final note about the official API lacking a self-serve key is tangential noise for invoking the tool. That sentence does not earn its place in a definition meant to guide tool selection.

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, the description explains the return content (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and the required follow-up browser tools, which is enough to call it correctly. It leaves a minor gap by not clarifying what 'manage' encompasses, but no output schema exists and the return format is described.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for.

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 behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions with screens, buttons, and fields for managing a standing appointment, and explicitly says it opens nothing by itself. The verb 'manage' remains vague about which operations (create, edit, cancel) are covered, and no sibling tool is named for differentiation.

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 a workflow: get the steps here, then execute with cotlet_browser_* tools. However, it never says when to choose this over siblings like create_appointment, cancel_appointment, or reschedule_appointment, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage is implied by the 'standing appointment' resource.

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