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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the tool returns instructions rather than performing the action, and spawns no browser. It doesn't say anything about the shape/size of the step-by-step output or failure cases (e.g., unsupported food type).

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 core point is front-loaded, but the text wastes space on 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' and on a redundant, awkwardly punctuated sentence: 'Fitatu's official API: Fitatu has no public API...' with a strangely specific '(checked 13 Oct 2026)' date. The useful content could be half as long.

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 instructional tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (steps with screens, buttons, fields) and what to do next. Slight gap: it doesn't clarify what happens on unrecognized or unsupported foods, but overall it is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 semantics to convey; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless call by describing a fixed instructional response.

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 is a guidance tool, not a logger: it 'Returns how to do it in Fitatu step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' That distinguishes it from an actual write operation, but the name/title 'Log food in Fitatu' still pulls toward the wrong mental model, which is a real ambiguity for an agent skimming tool 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 an explicit next step ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Fitatu Cloud Browser'), which is actionable sequencing guidance. It stops short of when-not conditions or prerequisites such as needing an open Cloud Browser session before calling this.

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