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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context: the tool returns a UI walkthrough (screens, buttons, fields) and performs no action itself, requiring a separate browser tool to execute. Missing auth/precondition and failure-mode details keep it from a 5.

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?

Front-loads the verb+resource and the key mechanic is present, but filler like 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' and the dangling 'CoachingPortal's official API: CoachingPortal publishes no public API' clause add noise and read awkwardly. The core message could be delivered in half the words.

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 params, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition supplies the essential missing piece: that this is an instruction-returning tool paired with cotlet_browser_* tools. Only preconditions (login state, what the returned steps look like) 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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List meal plans') and then discloses the non-obvious twist that it returns step-by-step instructions rather than data. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the large meal-plan sibling cluster (create/edit/assign/duplicate), relying on the 'list' naming convention alone.

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 clear follow-through guidance ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's CoachingPortal Cloud Browser') and states what it does not do ('opens nothing by itself'). It never says when to choose this over other read tools such as list_recipe_books or get_grocery_list, nor any precondition like being signed in.

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