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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety bar is covered. The description earns credit by adding non-obvious behavior: it returns instructional text and 'opens nothing by itself', and it names the downstream browser tool family needed to actually complete the action. What's left unstated is the shape of the returned steps (how many, how detailed) or whether results vary by account state.

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-loading is good — the action and the 'returns instructions, does nothing itself' caveat appear early. However, the closing sentence 'CoachingPortal's official API: CoachingPortal publishes no public API' is awkwardly worded and partly redundant with the surrounding text, and the 'ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' clause adds little.

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 tool, the description covers what an agent needs: what it returns, that it has no side effects, and which tool family performs the actual work. It could be slightly more complete by stating whether the returned steps are account-specific or static.

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 beyond the schema. The baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly implies the operation is fully determined by the user's account context.

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 (share meal plan) and qualifies scope as the user's own account, which implicitly separates it from client-facing assignment tools. It also discloses the crucial twist that the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the share. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling like assign_meal_plan or share_program as the alternative, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Clear usage context: call this to get the CoachingPortal screens/buttons/fields walkthrough, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. The rationale for the tool existing (no public API) is given. Missing are explicit exclusions — it never says when NOT to use it, e.g. versus assign_meal_plan for another user's plan.

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