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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description corroborates this with 'opens nothing by itself', which is meaningful context for a tool whose name suggests a write. It also discloses the return shape (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and the external dependency on the Cloud Browser. It does not cover failure modes or what happens if the user is not logged 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 core action and the 'opens nothing by itself' caveat, followed by the execution path and the API justification. Each sentence carries distinct information, though the 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' clause is filler that slightly muddies the opening.

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, non-mutating guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, that it changes nothing, and which tools must follow it. The only minor omission is what to do if the returned steps cannot be completed, but that belongs to the browser tools rather than this one.

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 to add and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call is parameterless by describing it as returning fixed guidance rather than taking food details. Nothing is missing on this dimension.

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 this tool does not create anything itself but returns a step-by-step guide (screens, buttons, fields) for creating a custom food in Cronometer, and it names the cotlet_browser_* tools as the executors. That specific verb+resource plus the guide-vs-action distinction separates it from the browser siblings. It loses a point because the opening phrasing ('Create custom food ... from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') momentarily reads like the tool performs the creation, contradicting the name's implication.

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 explicitly states the workflow: call this to get the steps, then carry them out with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Cronometer Cloud Browser. The 'Cronometer has no public API' note explains why the browser route is required. It does not name when NOT to use it (e.g., for logging an existing food via cronometer_log_food), so a small gap remains.

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