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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the tool returns procedural steps rather than data, performs no side effects, and requires a follow-up browser session. The note that Trainerfu publishes no general-purpose API explains why browser automation is needed, which is real context an agent cannot infer.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it returns, what it does not do plus the follow-up mechanism, and the API rationale. The dated vendor-source note ('12 November 2026') is slightly heavy but justifies the browser-based approach, so it earns its place. Front-loading is good with the action named first.

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, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so concretely ('step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'). It also explains the handoff to browser tools, which is the key thing an agent needs to chain correctly. A minor gap is that it does not say whether the returned steps assume an already-authenticated browser session or which client the diary review applies to.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter meaning is contradicted or left unclear.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Review client diary') and clarifies the account scope ('in the user's own Trainerfu account'). It also states what the tool actually returns ('how to do it in Trainerfu step by step') rather than leaving the agent to guess. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as trainerfu_review_client_assessments, but the resource noun is distinctive enough to route correctly.

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?

The definition gives a clear workflow: call this first to get instructions, then execute them with cotlet_browser_* tools in the Trainerfu Cloud Browser, and it explicitly says it 'opens nothing by itself'. What's missing is an explicit alternative — e.g. when to prefer cotlet_app_guide over this tool — but the operational context is unambiguous.

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