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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and non-destructive, but the description adds the counterintuitive core behavior an agent would otherwise get wrong: despite the name, it performs no action and opens nothing, it only returns instructions. It also discloses the ecosystem constraint (no public API, webhooks or MCP server) that explains why the browser tools are the required execution path.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the essential facts: what is returned and what the follow-up step is. The trailing note about Salonized having no public API is slightly tangential and the 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' clause is filler, but neither buries the operative information.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, which it does (steps with screens, buttons, fields). It is nearly complete for a zero-argument guidance tool; only the preconditions for the handoff (e.g. that the Cloud Browser must already be on Salonized) are left to the cotlet_browser_* siblings.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misleadingly implies parameters that do not exist.

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 concrete resource and outcome: it returns step-by-step instructions for booking an appointment in the user's Salonized account (screens, buttons, fields). The opening phrase 'Book appointment' momentarily reads as a write action but is immediately corrected by 'returns how to do it... and opens nothing by itself.' It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling cotlet_app_guide, which likely overlaps in providing app guidance.

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 call sequence: invoke this to get the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Salonized Cloud Browser. That is actionable context an agent can act on without inference. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. versus cotlet_app_guide or versus reading existing appointments with salonized_list_appointments).

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