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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints, the description discloses the critical behavioral surprise: the tool opens nothing, returns a screen/button/field playbook, and requires a separate browser session to act. It also explains why browser automation is necessary (no public API, webhooks, or MCP server, verified on a date), which is real context the annotations cannot carry.

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 core disclosure ('returns how to do it step by step... opens nothing by itself') lands early, but the openers 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' and the awkward fragment 'Salonized's official API: Salonized has no public API...' add noise. Three sentences carry roughly two sentences of value.

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 with annotations covering the safety profile, this is close to complete: it says what comes back, that nothing is opened, and which tools finish the job. It does not say whether the returned guide is static or tailored to the user's account, which is the only remaining ambiguity.

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 of 4 applies. It could have noted that no account/salon identifier is needed because the session supplies it, but that is a minor omission.

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 name and first sentence claim the tool 'lists appointments', but the second sentence reveals it actually returns step-by-step instructions for how to list them and opens nothing itself. That reversal is disclosed, but it leaves the agent momentarily unsure whether the tool produces data or documentation, and no sibling (e.g. cotlet_app_guide or the other salonized_* tools) is named for differentiation.

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 does give a workflow: call this first, then carry out the steps with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Salonized Cloud Browser. What's missing is any when-not guidance or contrast with adjacent tools like cotlet_app_guide or a direct cotlet_browser_navigate, so the agent must infer that this tool is the mandatory entry point.

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