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, and the description stays consistent with all of them. It adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: the call performs no action ('opens nothing by itself'), returns a procedural walkthrough of screens/buttons/fields, and is needed because there is no official Planfy API.

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-loaded with the purpose, then the output form, then the follow-up tool — a sensible order. The closing paragraph on the official API and Zapier is partly justification rather than instruction, and the 'checked 9 Nov 2026' date is distracting, but it does explain why browser automation is the path.

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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, that it is side-effect free, and which tools continue the workflow. The remaining gap is minor: it does not say how the step-by-step output is formatted or how many steps to expect.

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 schema imposes nothing to explain and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed, since the account scope is implicit ('the user's own Planfy account').

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 verb and resource ('List customers due a recall in the user's own Planfy account'), but immediately reframes the output as step-by-step instructions rather than a data listing, which leaves the tool's actual purpose slightly at odds with its name. It does distinguish itself from the cotlet_browser_* family by clarifying that it 'opens nothing by itself.'

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?

Clear sequencing guidance: call this first to get the steps, 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Planfy Cloud Browser.' What is missing is any comparative guidance against the sibling planfy_* workflow tools (list_appointments, find_free_slots), which an agent might confuse with this one.

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