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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself', which is the key behavioral fact for an agent that might otherwise assume it applies a policy. It also discloses what the return contains (screens, buttons, fields), which annotations 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?

The core message is front-loaded, but it is a single long run-on sentence stitched together with semicolons, and phrases like 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' add no decision-relevant information.

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 usefully explains what comes back and that a second tool family is needed to act on it. For a zero-parameter read-only guidance tool with annotations covering safety, that is essentially everything an agent needs.

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 the baseline is 4 and the description correctly adds no parameter detail. It does implicitly convey that the target is the caller's own account rather than a specified client.

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 makes clear that this tool returns step-by-step CoachingPortal instructions rather than performing a change, which resolves the mismatch between the mutation-sounding name 'set_weight_tracking_policy' and its actual advisory role. It also scopes the operation to the user's own account, distinguishing it from client-scoped siblings such as update_client_tracking, though it does not differentiate from other self-scoped 'set_*' settings tools.

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 states the workflow explicitly: call this to get the steps, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's CoachingPortal Cloud Browser, and notes that no public API exists so browser automation is the path. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use criteria or named alternatives for other account settings.

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