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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, but the description adds meaningfully: the call performs no browser action ('opens nothing by itself') and hands back a step-by-step procedure intended to be executed by separate browser tools. It also preempts the 'is there an API?' question by noting Squire has no public API or developer docs. Return format is described at a high level rather than in detail, which is acceptable since no output schema exists.

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 operative content is front-loaded and useful, but the closing sentence is redundant: 'Squire's official API: Squire has no public API and no developer docs' restates itself within one clause. The parenthetical 'checked 28 Oct 2026' adds bureaucratic detail that does not help an agent decide or invoke. Trimming that tail would make the definition materially tighter.

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, the description covers what an agent needs: what it returns (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields), that it has no side effects, and which tools to use next. The only gap is the absence of guidance relative to other guide-style tools such as cotlet_app_guide, but nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 a 4. The description does not waste space inventing parameter guidance, which is appropriate.

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 and resource ('List waitlist') and identifies the account context ('the user's own Squire account'), which separates it from appointment/client siblings. It also corrects the expectation set by the name by stating it 'Returns how to do it in Squire step by step (screens, buttons, fields)', so the agent knows it is a guide producer rather than a data lister. The 'List waitlist' framing versus the actual guide-returning behavior creates mild initial ambiguity, which keeps it below a 5.

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 usage path: call this first, then perform the action with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Squire Cloud Browser. It also states the boundary 'opens nothing by itself', which tells the agent this call is safe to make before acting. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over cotlet_app_guide or any other guide source, so there is no exclusion guidance.

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