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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses exactly what comes back (screens, buttons, fields), that it "opens nothing by itself," and that the actual mutation must be done through cotlet_browser_* tools. It also explains the reason — CoachingPortal publishes no public API — which preempts an agent's attempt to call a REST endpoint. This is informative context that annotations alone cannot convey.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the mechanics. Slight redundancy in repeatedly naming CoachingPortal and the awkward "CoachingPortal's official API: CoachingPortal publishes no public API" construction, but nothing is wasted at the sentence level.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema guidance tool, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and what to do next. It is somewhat vague about whether it covers the full range of habit operations (create, edit, delete) or how a specific habit is identified in the returned steps, but the essentials are present.

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 no parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter meaning the description could add, and none is omitted.

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 a specific verb+resource ("Manage self coaching habits") and scopes it to "the user's own CoachingPortal account," which separates it from client-facing siblings like configure_client_habit. The distinguishing detail is that it returns step-by-step guidance rather than performing the change, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with list_habits or manage_self_coaching_plan.

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 cotlet_browser_* tools. That is genuine when-to-use guidance including the follow-up action an agent needs. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or a direct pointer to which sibling handles adjacent habit tasks.

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