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 by stating it "opens nothing by itself" and returns screen/button/field-level guidance. It also adds the useful constraint that CoachingPortal publishes no public API, justifying the browser-based follow-up, but says nothing about required session state or failure modes.

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-loads the purpose, then the read-only/instruction-only behavior, then the follow-up mechanism. The closing line about the official API is slightly redundant in phrasing, but every sentence carries distinct 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?

For a parameterless, non-mutating guidance tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies what matters: it returns instructions rather than making changes, and the work continues via the browser tools. The residual gap is not specifying what "client tracking" covers, which leaves scope slightly ambiguous.

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. The description adds nothing parameter-related, but there is nothing to document; the guidance about what the tool returns substitutes adequately.

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?

States a verb and resource ("Update client tracking in the user's own CoachingPortal account"), but "client tracking" is not defined, and the many tracking-related siblings (e.g., coachingportal_set_weight_tracking_policy, coachingportal_adjust_client_targets) are not distinguished. An agent knows roughly what domain it touches but not precisely what aspect of tracking changes.

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?

Clearly explains the operating model: this tool returns step-by-step instructions and opens nothing itself, and the actual change is performed with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. It gives clear context for how to use it, though it never says when to prefer it over sibling tracking tools.

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