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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces and explains that profile: it 'opens nothing by itself' and only returns instructions, which resolves the apparent tension with the word 'Create.' It also adds the paid-add-on constraint on the official API. It does not describe the shape or length of the returned guide.

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 operational content is front-loaded and clear, but the final sentence quoting API add-on pricing ('API access is an additional feature with variable pricing', checked 11 Nov 2026) is verbose and tangential for a zero-parameter guidance tool. Trimming that would sharpen the definition without losing anything an agent needs to invoke it.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does: a step-by-step walkthrough of screens, buttons and fields, plus the instruction to execute via browser tools. Missing only minor prerequisites, such as what account permissions or browser session state are needed before the follow-up call.

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 input schema has zero parameters and full coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The description correctly implies no input is required beyond the conversational 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 ('Create a new workout plan in the user's own Exercise.com account') and then clarifies the actual deliverable: a step-by-step guide of screens, buttons and fields. That clarification is essential, because read against the name alone an agent would expect a write. It stops just short of explicitly contrasting itself with the sibling publish/copy/assign 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 context of use (from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent) and, crucially, the follow-up action: 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Exercise.com Cloud Browser.' It also points to the official API as an alternative channel. It does not say when to prefer a sibling tool such as the copy or publish variants, so the routing guidance is partial.

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