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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds substantive behavior: nothing is opened or mutated by this call, the return value is UI-level instructions, and the actual action requires a separate browser tool set. The only missing piece is what form the returned instructions take (text, JSON, list).

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 core disclosure (returns steps, performs nothing, escalate to browser tools) is front-loaded and useful. However, 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler, and the trailing note about no public API, while it justifies the browser-tool handoff, is appended awkwardly after the sentence it belongs to.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and mostly meets it by explaining the two-phase instruct-then-execute workflow. An agent knows what it gets back and what to do next. It could be stronger by stating that output is textual guidance rather than a generated summary document.

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 and the schema is a closed empty object, so there is nothing to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies. The description does not note that no scoping/date filtering is possible, but that is a minor omission for a no-arg tool.

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 the resource (progress summary) and then clarifies the actual mechanic: it returns step-by-step instructions for CoachingPortal screens/buttons/fields rather than performing the action. That distinguishes it from write siblings like add_progress_entry or create_progress_story. The opening verb 'Generate ... in the user's own account' sits in tension with 'opens nothing by itself', which costs it a point of crispness.

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 explicitly names the follow-up path: use the cotlet_browser_* tools in the CoachingPortal Cloud Browser to actually carry out the steps. That is a real when/how-to-use routing signal. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., when an agent should skip this and use get_client_progress instead).

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