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

Without the description, the name 'create a booking' would appear to contradict readOnlyHint=true; the text resolves this by stating it opens nothing by itself and only returns guidance. It also notes the official-API restriction, which is useful context for why a browser flow is used. It does not state whether anything is persisted or logged.

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 critical clarification (returns steps, opens nothing) is present but embedded after a misleading opening clause. The trailing API sentence and the 'checked 31 Oct 2026' parenthetical add little operative value for an agent deciding how to call the 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what comes back (screens, buttons, fields) and the follow-up tool family. It leaves open how the agent should gather booking inputs and whether any ResDiary configuration or login is assumed.

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 schema has zero parameters, which is consistent with a guidance-only tool, but the description never explains where the booking details (venue, date, party size) come from or whether the caller must supply them in conversation. That is the one piece of semantic information a zero-parameter 'create' tool actually needs.

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 makes the actual behavior explicit: it does not book anything, it returns step-by-step instructions for creating a booking in ResDiary. That corrects an otherwise misleading name. It stops short of differentiating itself from booking-related siblings such as resdiary_check_open_times or resdiary_move_a_booking.

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 handoff: get the steps here, then perform them via the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's ResDiary Cloud Browser. It does not say when to prefer this over alternative flows (e.g. checking open times first) or what prerequisites the user must satisfy before starting.

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