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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself', so there is no contradiction. It adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the return shape is a procedure (screens, buttons, fields), the follow-up tool family is named, and the absence of an official FitSW API explains why browser automation is required.

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 behavior and the browser-tool handoff are front-loaded and earn their place, but the opening 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler and the trailing API-availability sentence reads as a justification dump appended to the definition. It is serviceable but padded at both ends.

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 output schema and no parameters, the description must carry the return contract, and it only sketches it ('how to do it in FitSW step by step'). An agent knows the shape roughly but not what the response actually contains (a single procedure? a checklist?) or whether it covers all compliance types.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; the 4 baseline applies. The description does not waste effort restating an empty schema.

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 verb+resource ('Check compliance in the user's own FitSW account') is stated, but the description then reveals the tool actually returns step-by-step instructions for doing it in FitSW rather than compliance data itself, which blurs what the tool really is. 'Compliance' is never defined (client workout compliance? billing?), and no sibling such as cotlet_app_guide is named as an alternative.

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?

Explicit sequencing is given: call this to get the steps, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's FitSW Cloud Browser. The 'opens nothing by itself' clause makes clear this is a planning step, not an action. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over the generic cotlet_app_guide.

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