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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them ("opens nothing by itself"). It adds genuinely useful context the annotations cannot convey: the return value is an instructional walkthrough, and no public API exists so a cloud browser is required.

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 second sentence is overloaded, packing the return format, non-effect, and the required follow-up toolchain into one clause-heavy line. "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" is promotional filler that does not help an agent decide or invoke; the key point that this tool only returns a guide is not front-loaded.

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 guidance tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it returns, that it performs no action, and which tool family completes the task. Only the absence of sibling routing (e.g., editing vs. creating when no plan exists) keeps it below the top.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing to disambiguate. The description correctly omits parameter discussion and instead spends its words on output and follow-up behavior.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Edit meal plan") and scopes it to "the user's own CoachingPortal account," then clarifies the actual output: a step-by-step guide. The name distinguishes it adequately from create/delete/duplicate siblings, but the description never explicitly says so, and the true nature of the tool (returns instructions, does not edit) only surfaces in the second sentence.

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?

Gives a clear two-step workflow: this tool returns screens/buttons/fields, then the caller executes with cotlet_browser_* tools. It names the complementary tool family explicitly. It stops short of stating when a sibling like create_meal_plan or duplicate_meal_plan would be the better choice.

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