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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real value on top by stating 'opens nothing by itself' and describing the return content (screens, buttons, fields). It also explains the underlying constraint that CoachingPortal publishes no public API, which clarifies why a browser-based follow-up is required. It stops short of describing the exact output shape or failure modes.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the correction that it returns instructions rather than executing. The phrase 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is marketing padding that does not help an agent decide anything, and the trailing 'official API / no public API' sentence is slightly awkward, but the rest is dense and purposeful.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, what is deliberately not performed, why (no public API), and what to do next. The only meaningful gap is that it does not tell the agent how this fits with the surrounding assignment/edit/generate meal-plan siblings, which matters given the crowded sibling set.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters, additionalProperties=false), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for zero-param tools applies. The one implicit parameter-like constraint is the target of the plan (the 'user's own CoachingPortal account'), and it states that clearly, avoiding confusion with a client's account.

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 verb and resource and then corrects the natural assumption from the name: it does not create anything, it 'Returns how to do it in CoachingPortal step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'. That makes the actual function unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling tools such as assign_meal_plan, edit_meal_plan or generate_meal_plan_draft, so an agent still has to infer which meal-plan tool applies.

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?

Usage is implied rather than spelled out: call this first, then 'do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's CoachingPortal Cloud Browser'. That is a useful sequential hint and names the follow-up tool family. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of preconditions (e.g. an active Cloud Browser session), and no routing away from the many sibling meal-plan tools.

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