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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is fully consistent with them, adding useful context that nothing is opened and that the response is procedural text. It adds the important architectural fact that CoachingPortal has no public API, which explains why browser tools are required. It stops short of anything else behavioral – no note on rate limits, whether the steps are version-specific, or what happens if the user is not signed in.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and then the return behavior and the hand-off to browser tools. The final sentence ("CoachingPortal's official API: CoachingPortal publishes no public API.") is slightly redundant in phrasing but earns its place by justifying the browser-based follow-up.

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 and no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does so at a high level (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields). However, it never says how the agent should supply the actual feature-request details, given the tool accepts no input, and gives no indication of what a failure or partial answer looks like. Adequate for a thin instruction-retrieval tool, but there are clear gaps around input provenance.

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 there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. It could have noted that the feature-request content is not supplied as input (presumably gathered conversationally), but the absence of an input schema makes this a minor omission.

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 (submit a feature request in the user's CoachingPortal account) and then immediately resolves the tension with the title by clarifying that the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. It distinguishes itself from the browser-driving path by naming the cotlet_browser_* tools as the follow-up step, though it does not differentiate against any of the many coachingportal_* siblings that share the same naming prefix.

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?

Usage is laid out as an explicit sequence: call this tool to get the screens/buttons/fields, then execute the steps with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Cloud Browser. It also implicitly tells the agent not to expect side effects here ("opens nothing by itself"). What is missing is any when-not guidance or a statement of which situations this workflow covers versus the other CoachingPortal tools.

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