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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that by saying it 'opens nothing by itself'. It adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: the return is procedural instructions rather than data, and the actual mutation happens via browser tools. It does not describe the shape or granularity of the returned steps, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Everything is front-loaded and the key caveat ('opens nothing by itself') lands early, but the second half is a run-on chain of semicolon-joined clauses that mixes usage instructions, tool routing, and an API note. It is dense rather than wasteful, but the flow could be tightened.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple read-only contract, the description covers what an agent needs: what it returns, that it mutates nothing, and what to call next. The only gap is that the format of the returned steps is not specified, which matters somewhat since there is no output schema.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline applies. The description does not mislead about inputs, though it also does not flag that the target meal plan must be identified implicitly by the instruction text.

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 (delete a meal plan in the user's CoachingPortal account) and then immediately clarifies that the tool does not perform the deletion itself but returns step-by-step instructions. An agent can tell this apart from a plain list/read tool, though nothing in the text distinguishes it from the other meal-plan siblings such as edit or create.

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 makes the usage path explicit: call this to get the screens/buttons/fields, then execute with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. It also rules out any API route by stating CoachingPortal has no public API. No explicit when-not condition is given, but the sequencing guidance is clear.

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