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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that ('opens nothing by itself'). Beyond the annotations it adds useful context: the return payload is step-by-step UI instructions covering screens, buttons and fields, and no official CoachingPortal API exists. It does not discuss failure modes or what happens if the user is not authenticated in the portal, which is the main remaining gap.

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 behavioral fact — it returns instructions and performs no action — is front-loaded, which is good. But 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' adds no routing value, and the closing line 'CoachingPortal's official API: CoachingPortal publishes no public API' is circular phrasing that restates the same fact twice.

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 rich annotations, the burden is small, and the description covers the two things an agent actually needs: what comes back (step-by-step UI instructions) and that nothing is executed server-side. The lack of any note about prerequisites or what to do if the browser session is unavailable is a minor omission.

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 no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Nothing in the description misdescribes the input surface.

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 names the resource (community) and, importantly, corrects the misleading name by stating the tool 'Returns how to do it in CoachingPortal step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself' — so it is a guidance tool, not a data lister. It does not, however, contrast itself with the many other coachingportal_list_* siblings, so an agent cannot tell from the description why this one returns instructions while the others presumably return data.

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 workflow: call this to get the steps, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser, and it notes there is no public API to fall back on. What it lacks is any when-not condition or explicit contrast with sibling list tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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