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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by stating 'opens nothing by itself' — making explicit that the tool is advisory and the mutation happens elsewhere. It does not say how current connected-account state is determined or what the returned steps look like.

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 point (returns instructions, does not act) is front-loaded and useful, but 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler, and the closing 'CoachingPortal's official API: CoachingPortal publishes no public API' is a redundant restatement that could be one clean 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 zero parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description carries little burden — yet it is the only place the return value is described, and it says only 'step by step (screens, buttons, fields)' without indicating whether it covers all connected-account types or how to verify the outcome afterward.

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 schema takes zero parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies no input is needed — the account/provider choice is passed later through the browser tools.

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 a resource (connected accounts in the user's own CoachingPortal account) and, crucially, redefines the verb: the tool returns step-by-step guidance rather than performing the change. The verb 'manage' remains broad (create/update/remove of which provider accounts is unstated), and no sibling is named, so it stops short of a 5.

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 an explicit two-step workflow: call this to get the UI steps, then perform the action with cotlet_browser_* in the user's Cloud Browser. It also removes the obvious alternative ('publishes no public API'), which tells the agent not to look for an API route. It does not state exclusions or prerequisites, so no 5.

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