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

With readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false already declared, the description adds the key behavioral fact that the tool 'opens nothing by itself' — no navigation, no side effects — and returns text instructions only. That extra context prevents an agent from assuming an action has already been applied. It does not describe error conditions (e.g. no browser session) or output volume, leaving a small gap.

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 operative sentence about returning step-by-step instructions and opening nothing comes second, after a framing clause ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') that adds little. The closing sentence about no public API with a 'checked 13 Oct 2026' date is marketing/SEO padding that does not help an agent decide or call the tool. Tightening to two sentences would improve 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (screens, buttons, fields) and the expected next step (cotlet_browser_* tools). Annotations already cover the safety profile. It lacks any note on preconditions such as an existing cloud-browser session or account state, which is the main remaining gap.

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 (additionalProperties false), so there is no schema semantics for the description to extend. Baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs; it correctly implies the tool needs no arguments, though it never says how the target day is identified — presumably from 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 the concrete resource (a day in the user's own Fitatu account) and corrects the misleading verb in the name by stating that the tool 'returns how to do it in Fitatu step by step (screens, buttons, fields)' rather than performing the copy. It is clearly a guidance tool, not a mutation. It only weakly differentiates from the API-style fitatu_* siblings (get_diary, log_food), which it never names.

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 gives explicit follow-through guidance: after getting the steps, execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Fitatu Cloud Browser, and states that it opens nothing itself. It also explains the rationale (no public Fitatu API) for why this route exists. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead for related tasks such as viewing or logging a day, so the routing is inferred rather than stated.

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