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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that the return is procedural guidance (screens, buttons, fields), that nothing is opened or mutated, and that there is no official Kahunas API. It doesn't describe output size or whether the steps vary by plan, keeping it at 4.

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?

Front-loaded and mostly efficient, with the key scoping fact ('opens nothing by itself') placed before the follow-up instruction. The final clause about the official API is a bit of an aside, and the sentence chain is dense, but nothing is padded.

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, no-output-schema guidance tool, the definition covers the essentials: what it returns, that it performs no action, and the handoff to browser tools. The one gap is that it never clarifies the guidance is generic rather than parameterized by a specific client or plan.

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 declares zero parameters, so the baseline is 4, but the description never explains the consequence: the tool cannot be told which client or which workout plan to target. For a task whose name implies two required inputs (a plan and a user), leaving that ambiguity unaddressed costs it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Assign workout plan in the user's own Kahunas account') and immediately qualifies the deliverable: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. This makes it clearly distinguishable from the cotlet_browser_* execution siblings without needing to open their schemas.

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?

Explicitly says 'opens nothing by itself' and routes the agent onward: 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Kahunas Cloud Browser.' That is a clear two-step workflow. It stops short of naming when this is the wrong choice versus other Kahunas lookup siblings, so it's a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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