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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself,' removing any doubt that no state changes occur. It also discloses the handoff requirement (Cloud Browser + cotlet_browser_* tools) and that no public API exists, which is real behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not describe the shape or length of the returned instructions, but with the read-only profile settled this is a minor gap.

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 clarification (returns steps, changes nothing, then act via cotlet_browser_*) is front-loaded and well ordered. Minor waste in the closing phrase 'CoachingPortal's official API: CoachingPortal publishes no public API,' which restates the same fact twice, and the 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' clause adds little.

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?

With no input schema, no output schema and a read-only annotation profile, the description supplies what an agent actually needs: what comes back (screens/buttons/fields), that nothing executes, and what to call next. The one open question is scope — 'client targets' is never defined (which target types, whether a specific client must be indicated), which matters for a zero-parameter tool.

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 applies. No wasted parameter discussion is present.

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 ('client targets') and — crucially — corrects the misleading verb in the name by clarifying it 'Returns how to do it in CoachingPortal step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' That tells an agent this is a guidance tool, not a mutation. It stops short of distinguishing it from adjacent target-related siblings such as coachingportal_calculate_meal_plan_targets, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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 explicit sequencing: call this to get the walkthrough, 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's CoachingPortal Cloud Browser.' That is a clear when-to-use plus the alternative execution path. It does not state when *not* to use it (e.g. versus the native CoachingPortal tools in the sibling list), so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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