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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it explicitly says the call opens nothing by itself and produces a navigation recipe, which prevents an agent from assuming the habit was actually recorded. It also discloses that no public API exists, explaining why browser automation is required, and this is fully consistent with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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-loaded with the surprising behavior (returns instructions, opens nothing) before the follow-up action, which is the right ordering. The trailing 'CoachingPortal's official API: CoachingPortal publishes no public API' is redundantly worded and could be one clause.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so concretely (screens, buttons, fields). For a zero-parameter, read-only instruction tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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 and the schema is trivially complete. The description adds nothing misleading in place of parameters, though it also gives no hint about what context the instruction output is keyed to.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (log habit completion) and immediately corrects the natural misreading by stating the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. It scopes the target as the user's own account, which separates it from client-facing siblings, but it never names a concrete alternative such as coachingportal_log_personal_progress.

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 two-step usage model: call this to get the screens/buttons/fields, then execute with cotlet_browser_* tools in the CoachingPortal Cloud Browser. It does not state when a different logging tool would be the better choice, so the alternative-selection guidance is implicit.

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