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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the crucial non-obvious behavior: it 'opens nothing by itself' and returns screens/buttons/fields guidance instead of mutating state. The note that CoachingPortal publishes no public API explains why browser automation is required. It omits prerequisite details such as the need for an authenticated Cloud Browser session.

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?

Roughly three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the key clarification that it does not act on its own. The trailing 'CoachingPortal's official API: CoachingPortal publishes no public API' is redundant phrasing that repeats itself and 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?

With zero parameters, no output schema and meaningful annotations, the definition supplies what an agent needs: what it returns, that it is non-mutating, and which tool family to use afterward. Only preconditions for the subsequent browser step are left implicit.

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 beyond what the schema provides; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed because the tool only returns guidance.

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 (intake form) and clarifies the real action: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the edit, and names the follow-up browser tools. The leading phrase 'Edit intake form' initially reads as a mutation, which is only corrected in the next clause, so it falls short of a perfectly unambiguous verb+resource statement.

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 next-step routing ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's CoachingPortal Cloud Browser'), which tells the agent how to complete the task. It does not state exclusions, such as when to prefer publish_intake_form or configure_check_in_questions over this tool, but the usage context is clear.

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