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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself', which is genuinely useful confirmation for a tool whose name sounds like a write operation, but it goes no further on what the output contains beyond 'screens, buttons, fields'.

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 instruction-reveal is reasonably front-loaded, but phrases like 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' are promotional filler, and the 'official API: publishes no public API' line is redundant given the workflow already stated. The second sentence is a run-on that could be split.

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 simple 0-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what it returns, what it does not do, and the required follow-up. The remaining gap is the absence of prerequisites (e.g., an active Cloud Browser session in the same CoachingPortal account) and sibling differentiation.

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?

Zero parameters triggers the baseline of 4, and the description is consistent with a parameterless, generic-instructions tool. It never addresses how the specific meal plan being duplicated is identified, which is a minor ambiguity but not a schema gap.

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 pairs the verb 'duplicate' with the resource 'meal plan' and adds the crucial clarification that the tool only returns step-by-step UI instructions rather than performing the duplication. It doesn't name close siblings such as create_meal_plan, duplicate_program, or assign_meal_plan, so the agent must infer the distinction from context.

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 a usable two-step workflow: call this to get the CoachingPortal steps, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. It lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., 'do not use this when the API-equivalent create_meal_plan exists'), so the agent still has to reason about alternatives.

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