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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it 'opens nothing by itself' and explains the absence of a public API/webhooks, which justifies why a browser flow is required.

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 core action well, but the phrasing ('Returns how to do it in Peerspace step by step ... and opens nothing by itself') is awkward and requires re-reading, and the final API sentence is tangential to invocation guidance.

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 parameterless guide tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields), what it does not do, and how to act on the result. Sufficient to call it correctly.

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.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list booking requests in the user's own Peerspace account) and clarifies the crucial twist that the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than the data itself. It distinguishes itself from the action siblings by pointing to cotlet_browser_* tools, though the name 'list_booking_requests' still slightly oversells a data-returning behavior.

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?

Describes the workflow (get instructions here, then execute with cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser), which implies when to use it. However, it never explicitly contrasts with peerspace_accept_booking, peerspace_reply_to_inquiry, or cotlet_app_guide, so the agent must infer the routing.

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