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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is fully consistent with them ('opens nothing by itself'). Beyond the annotations, it discloses the return content (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and the external fact that Yardbook has no public API, which explains why a browser-driving follow-up is required. No output schema exists, so stating the return shape here adds real value.

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 guidance is front-loaded, but the final sentence ('Yardbook's official API: Yardbook has no public API and no developer docs (checked 11 Oct 2026)') is a restated, dated aside that partially duplicates the earlier 'no public API' implication and mixes a justification with a citation. Somewhat dense, run-on sentence structure.

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, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it returns, what it does not do, and which tools carry out the actual work. It is close to self-sufficient; the only gap is any sense of what the returned steps look like in scope (e.g. whether they cover the full job form or a summary).

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 complete with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing to disambiguate. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed; baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 identifies the resource (scheduling a job in the user's Yardbook account) and, crucially, corrects the impression the name creates by stating it 'returns how to do it in Yardbook step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself' — i.e. it is a guidance tool, not an action tool. That is a specific and distinguishing purpose, though the phrasing leads with the action framing before the clarifying clause.

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 an explicit two-step usage flow: call this to get screens/buttons/fields, then perform the work with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. That is clear routing guidance and implicitly excludes using this tool to actually schedule anything. It does not address when to prefer this over cotlet_app_guide, the closest sibling, but coverage is otherwise solid.

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