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

The description carries the behavioral burden well beyond the annotations: it says the tool opens nothing by itself, returns screens/buttons/fields, and that the actual work happens through browser tools. The note on Salonist's Expert-plan-only API access and widget-focused public API explains why a guide-then-browse flow is required, with a verification date. It is fully consistent with readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the crucial 'returns instructions, opens nothing' clarification. The closing API-plan sentence is longer than needed, though the 'checked 8 Nov 2026' stamp gives it some justification as a verifiable freshness marker.

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 output schema, the description does the work of describing the return value (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and the required follow-up with browser tools, which is exactly what an agent needs to plan a multi-step task. It leaves open whether the guide is static or refreshed per app version, and whether authentication state matters.

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 there is no parameter meaning for the description to add and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly puts all variable input (client, service, time) into the downstream browser step rather than implying hidden parameters.

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 task (booking an appointment in the user's Salonist account) and immediately clarifies a non-obvious behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the booking. That resolves the mismatch an agent would otherwise infer from the tool name. It stops short of naming close siblings, so an agent is not explicitly told when to prefer salonist_reschedule_appointment or cotlet_app_guide over this.

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 sequencing rule: call this first, then execute the steps with the cotlet_browser_* tools inside the Salonist Cloud Browser. That is real when-and-how guidance, not just context. It lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., use the reschedule tool for changing an existing appointment) and any precondition about the user being signed in.

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