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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating it 'opens nothing by itself'. It also explains the underlying constraint (no public API, no self-service keys), which is valuable context an agent cannot infer from annotations. It does not discuss output format or whether the returned steps can go stale.

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 what the tool returns and what it does not do. Filler phrases such as 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' and the appended API footnote earn little, and the semicolon-chained second sentence is dense.

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 guidance tool with a full annotation set and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, what happens next, and why browser automation is required. Missing only detail on the shape of the returned instructions and any freshness caveats.

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 and the schema has no properties, so there is no parameter semantics to add. The baseline of 4 applies.

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 verb+resource (returns step-by-step rescheduling instructions with screens, buttons, fields) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the cotlet_browser_* tools that actually perform the work. The opening clause 'Reschedule visit in the user's own Service Autopilot account' reads like a mutation, and only the second sentence clarifies that it is really a how-to lookup, so the tool's true nature is slightly buried.

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 workflow: call this first, then execute the steps with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Service Autopilot Cloud Browser. It does not compare itself to potential alternatives such as cotlet_app_guide or direct browser navigation, so the agent gets context but no explicit exclusions.

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