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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the call has no side effects on the browser, returns procedural screens/buttons/fields guidance, and the vendor has no public API (checked 27 Oct 2026) so API-shaped expectations should be dropped. A concrete caveat about rate limits or the guide going stale would push this higher.

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 purpose and immediately followed by the crucial 'opens nothing by itself' clarification. The parenthetical API-checked date is slightly distracting but does carry evidentiary value about why an API path is unavailable.

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, non-destructive guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (screens, buttons, fields) and what must follow it (browser tools). Nothing an agent needs in order to call it and act on the result is missing, though it does not say how large or current the returned guide is.

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 is fully closed (additionalProperties=false), so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 names a specific verb+resource (list appointments in SimplePractice) and explicitly discloses the unusual return shape: step-by-step UI instructions rather than data. It also states there is no public SimplePractice API, which distinguishes this from an API-backed tool. It falls short of 5 because 'List appointments' initially implies a data fetch that the rest of the text must walk back.

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 clear operating context: this tool opens nothing by itself, and the actual work must be done afterwards with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's SimplePractice Cloud Browser. It does not name when-not-to-use cases or compare against the other simplepractice_* siblings, but the two-step workflow is explicit enough to route an agent correctly.

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