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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value by saying it 'opens nothing by itself' and that the output consists of concrete screens/buttons/fields rather than live data. It stops short of describing output shape or whether a Cloud Browser session must already be open.

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 behavioral statement is front-loaded, but 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler, and the trailing API-status sentence, including a vendor quote and a checked-on date, occupies roughly a third of the text for marginal invocation value. The core instruction could be stated in half the words.

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 return-value burden and does explain that the result is a step-by-step procedure rather than appointment data. That is enough for an agent to call it correctly, though the exact output format remains unspecified.

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 to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed beyond the user context.

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 the real behavior in its second sentence: it returns a step-by-step guide of what to do in Planfy (screens, buttons, fields) rather than listing anything itself. That distinguishes it from the cotlet_browser_* execution tools, though the opening sentence ('List appointments in the user's own Planfy account') reads as the goal rather than what the tool returns, which mildly conflicts with the name. No differentiation from planfy_book_appointment or planfy_find_free_slots, which appear to follow the same guide pattern.

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 clear usage sequence: call this first to get the steps, then perform them with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Planfy Cloud Browser. It also explains why (no official API, no Zapier app), which justifies choosing this route over an integration. It does not say when to prefer this over the sibling Planfy tools, but no exclusions are actively misleading.

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