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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds genuinely new behavior: it "opens nothing by itself" and must be paired with browser tools, and it notes there is no public CoachingPortal API. That tells the agent the call is a planning/guidance step rather than a data fetch, which is context annotations cannot convey. The unresolved ambiguity about whether the return is a resource list or step-by-step instructions is the main 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 opening clause is front-loaded with the verb and resource, which is good, but "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" is filler that adds no selection value. The closing line "CoachingPortal's official API: CoachingPortal publishes no public API" is awkwardly worded and restates the same point twice in one sentence.

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 burden of explaining what comes back, and here it is ambiguous: it says it lists resources but also that it returns step-by-step screens/buttons/fields. The browser-tool handoff and the no-API caveat are covered, but an agent still cannot predict the response shape or whether the resources themselves are included.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema is fully described and closed (additionalProperties=false), so no parameter explanation is required.

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 and resource ("List resources") plus a scope restriction ("in the user's own CoachingPortal account"), which is more than the title alone provides. However, the second sentence redefines the return as "how to do it in CoachingPortal step by step," which conflicts with the framing of a listing tool and leaves the agent unsure whether it receives data or instructions. It also gives no differentiation from the many sibling list_* tools (list_programs, list_clients, list_habits).

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 forward handoff — after calling this, perform the action with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser — which is useful workflow guidance. It stops short of saying when to pick this tool over the other list_* siblings, or any conditions under which it should not be used. The usage path is implied rather than stated as an explicit when/when-not rule.

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