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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real value on top: it discloses the return content (screens, buttons, fields), explicitly states no side effect occurs ('opens nothing by itself'), and explains the dependency on the Cloud Browser and the absence of a public API. It does not address account scoping or permissions, keeping it short of 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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information (what it returns, that it is a no-op, how to proceed, and why there is no API route). The trailing 'CoachingPortal's official API: CoachingPortal publishes no public API.' is slightly redundant in phrasing, and the action-flavored opening is misleading until corrected.

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, side-effect-free guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content, the follow-up tool chain, and why no direct API exists. The only gap is that it does not describe the shape of the returned steps in more detail, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 no parameter meaning for the description to add; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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 and resource ('Publish announcement in the user's own CoachingPortal account') and then corrects the obvious misreading by stating it 'Returns how to do it in CoachingPortal step by step' and 'opens nothing by itself.' An agent can tell this is an instruction-provider, not an executor, though the leading imperative phrasing delays that clarification by one sentence.

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 explicit next-step guidance: after getting the steps, execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's CoachingPortal Cloud Browser. It also rules out an API path ('CoachingPortal publishes no public API'), so the agent knows this is the only route. It does not state when NOT to call it or contrast it with other coachingportal_* siblings.

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