coachingportal_guide

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the content (screens and sign-in link), which implies a read-only informational tool, but it does not say whether sign-in state matters, whether the returned link expires, or what the response looks like. Adequate but thin for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two compact clauses with no filler. The key sequencing instruction 'Call this first' sits at the end rather than being front-loaded, and the parenthetical interrupts the main clause, but overall it is tight and readable.

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 one-optional-parameter orientation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it is for and when to invoke it. The only gap is not clarifying the form of the returned guidance, which is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There is a single optional 'task' parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description's parenthetical ('review client check-ins and training programs') loosely hints at acceptable task scope, which adds marginal meaning beyond the schema but no format or example guidance.

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 resource ('How to work in CoachingPortal') plus what it delivers ('its screens and the sign-in link'), which is enough to distinguish it from the UI-action siblings like click/read/type. It is slightly vague on output form – whether it returns documentation, a URL, or both – which keeps it from a 5.

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?

'Call this first' gives an explicit entry-point instruction that is genuinely actionable for an agent orienting itself. It does not state when NOT to use it or name a follow-up alternative, but for a first-call orientation tool that exclusion is largely implicit.

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