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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces the key behavioral fact an agent would otherwise get wrong: despite 'create' in the name, it mutates nothing and merely returns navigation instructions. It also explains why browser automation is required ('My PT Hub publishes no public API'). It stops short of describing the shape of the returned steps or any auth/login state required to act on them, which keeps it off a 5.

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 critical correction ('returns how to do it ... opens nothing by itself') is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is the right ordering. The preamble 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is marketing filler that does not help selection and could be cut.

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 guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (screens, buttons, fields), what it does not do (opens nothing), and the follow-up mechanism (cotlet_browser_* tools). Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed given the empty schema at 100% coverage.

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 resource (nutrition plan in the user's own My PT Hub account) and immediately corrects the misleading verb by stating it 'Returns how to do it in My PT Hub step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' That distinguishes it from the cotlet_browser_* executors, which it names explicitly, so an agent can pick it apart from siblings without opening a schema.

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 two-step workflow: call this tool for the how-to, then perform the actions 'with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's My PT Hub Cloud Browser.' The named alternative plus the condition that selects it satisfies the when/when-not bar, and no other My PT Hub sibling is left as an ambiguous option.

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