Show the booking window

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

The annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, and not open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it surfaces a Chrome window and hands control back to the user for manual completion, which tells the agent this is an interactive UI action rather than a data-returning operation.

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 description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and follows with the reason. Every clause earns its place by combining purpose and usage context without repetition.

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?

Given the zero-parameter schema, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly. A minor gap is that it does not state what happens if no current booking exists, but the core behavior and manual-completion scenario are clear.

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 no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 action and resource: it brings the Chrome window with the current booking on-screen. It also explains the intended outcome, letting the user finish a needs_user booking manually. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as prepare_booking or confirm_booking, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The phrase 'so the user can finish a needs_user booking by hand' gives clear usage context: this tool is for bookings in a needs_user state that require manual completion. It does not list exclusions or name alternative tools, but the triggering condition is clear.

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