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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true and destructive=false, and the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself', which prevents an agent from assuming a side effect occurs. It also discloses the return shape (screens, buttons, fields) and the upstream API gating, which is context not present in the annotations. The 'checked 14 Oct 2026' date is an unverifiable detail that adds little.

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 handoff is front-loaded and useful, but the opening clause about 'ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler, and the API-gate note with a date is tangential to invoking the tool. Trimming those would sharpen an otherwise compact definition.

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 guide tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, that it has no side effects, and which tools to use next. That is nearly everything an agent needs; only a hint about how the steps are scoped (which SnelStart screen or entry type) is absent.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly signals a no-argument, instruction-returning call, so an agent will not search for missing inputs.

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 resource (a SnelStart entry) and clarifies the concrete output: a step-by-step guide of screens, buttons and fields rather than the booking itself. It differentiates itself from the sibling write tools by explicitly handing off execution to cotlet_browser_* tools. The phrase 'Book entry' is slightly ambiguous on its own, but the body resolves it.

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 to get instructions, then perform the booking with cotlet_browser_* in the Cloud Browser. It also flags that the official API exists but is gated, which helps an agent understand why this path is needed. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it (e.g., when a direct API-backed sibling applies).

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