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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the tool returns instructions rather than data, performs no action, and must be followed by cotlet_browser_* tools. That is the key non-obvious trait an agent needs. It stops short of describing the output shape in any structured way.

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 definition is short and generally front-loaded, opening with the resource. There is some filler ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') and a slightly awkward trailing fragment ('CoachingPortal's official API: CoachingPortal publishes no public API'), but nothing that obscures meaning.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description is largely complete: it explains what is returned (steps covering screens, buttons, fields) and what must happen next. The one unresolved ambiguity is how 'client' is scoped when there are no parameters, which is not addressed.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter details, and the absence of parameters is consistent with a tool that returns generic walkthrough instructions.

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 precisely ('Get client progress') and then explicitly redefines the actual behavior: it 'Returns how to do it in CoachingPortal step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' This disclosure prevents an agent from mistaking it for a data-fetch tool. It could be sharper about how it differs from siblings like get_dashboard or get_personal_insights, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 clear usage path: call this to get the UI steps, then 'do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's CoachingPortal Cloud Browser.' It also implicitly excludes treating this tool as the action itself ('opens nothing by itself'). It does not distinguish usage relative to sibling progress tools, which keeps it short of a 5.

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