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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it returns a step-by-step guide (screens, buttons, fields), performs no action itself, and notes Squire has no public API. This is solid added value, though it could say more about the shape of the returned steps.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the key behavioral caveat ('opens nothing by itself') early. The trailing note about Squire's lack of a public API is slightly awkwardly phrased but earns its place by explaining why a browser-based procedure is needed.

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 it returns (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields) and how to act on it via cotlet_browser_* tools. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only the exact return format is left implicit.

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. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed to obtain the procedure, and there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reschedule appointment in the user's own Squire account') and clarifies the tool's real nature: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives (squire_book_appointment, squire_cancel_appointment), so it falls short of a 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Gives clear usage context: call this to get the reschedule procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Squire Cloud Browser. It also notes the tool 'opens nothing by itself,' which prevents misuse. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming the book/cancel siblings as alternatives.

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