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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that, reinforcing that nothing is opened or changed. It adds useful specifics about the response shape — screens, buttons and fields, step by step — which the agent would otherwise not know since there is no output schema.

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 operative content — that it returns a walkthrough and that cotlet_browser_* tools execute it — is front-loaded and tight. The closing paragraph about WorkWave's one-time setup fee and call pricing is tangential marketing detail that does not help the agent select or invoke this tool.

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 burden of explaining what comes back, and it does: a step-by-step guide with screens, buttons and fields. The only shortfall is that it doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., which service order, logged-in state) or how the returned steps reference a specific order.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required and that identity/account context comes from the user's own PestPac session rather than arguments.

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 eventually makes clear that this returns a step-by-step how-to rather than performing the reschedule ('opens nothing by itself'), but the opening sentence 'Reschedule service order in the user's own PestPac account' reads like the action itself is performed. It never distinguishes this from the sibling pestpac_schedule_service_order, leaving the agent to infer the difference from names alone.

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 does tell the agent what to do next — run the steps with cotlet_browser_* tools in the PestPac Cloud Browser — which is useful sequencing guidance. However it gives no condition for choosing this over pestpac_schedule_service_order, and the pricing tangent about WorkWave's REST API is context, not a when-to-use rule.

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