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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explicitly says the tool 'opens nothing by itself' and returns step-by-step screens/buttons/fields, which prevents misunderstanding that it performs the assignment directly.

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 description is reasonably front-loaded and delivers key points: what it does, that it returns instructions, and what to do next. Some details (e.g., 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' and the API availability note) are slightly extraneous but do not significantly hinder clarity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, simple read-only behavior), the description is largely complete. It explains the return format (step-by-step instructions) and the necessary follow-up action, leaving little ambiguity for an agent.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to compensate for. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and output, and no additional parameter meaning is needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Assign program in the user's own TrueCoach account') and clarifies that it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the assignment. However, the name 'assign_program' could initially mislead, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar guide-oriented siblings like cotlet_app_guide.

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 description indicates a follow-up action ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools'), giving implied workflow guidance. But it offers no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, and does not state exclusions or contrast with other TrueCoach or guide tools.

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