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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces rather than contradicts them with "opens nothing by itself" — a useful, concrete statement of the tool's side-effect profile. It adds real context beyond the annotations: the return shape (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields), the required follow-up browser tooling, and the reason browser automation is used (official API limited to approved integrations).

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?

Three compact sentences that lead with the action and immediately correct the likely misreading that it performs the move. The "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" clause is mild filler and the API-approval note is tangential, but neither obscures the core instruction.

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 inputs and returns, and it does explain the returns well. However, it never says how the specific booking to move is identified (session state? prior context?) or what happens if the booking cannot be found — a real gap for a zero-parameter tool whose whole job is booking-specific.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description does not explain how the target booking is identified given the empty schema, but that is a completeness concern rather than a parameter-semantics one.

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?

"Move a booking in the user's own ResDiary account" states a specific verb and resource, and the second sentence clarifies the non-obvious twist: it returns a step-by-step guide rather than performing the move. It is distinguishable from resdiary_create_a_booking and resdiary_cancel_a_booking by the resource alone, though the description never names those siblings to reinforce the split.

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 clearly sets the workflow context: call this to get the screens/buttons/fields, then execute with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the ResDiary Cloud Browser. That is genuine routing guidance. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g. when to prefer a sibling resdiary_* tool or that the official API is unavailable to this user).

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