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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that — it explicitly says it 'opens nothing by itself' and that execution happens later via browser tools. It does not mention rate limits or auth requirements, but none are implied for a no-op guidance 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?

The critical constraint (returns instructions, performs nothing) is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the API caveat is a useful trailing note. Some phrasing is awkward ('returns how to do it ... step by step') and the parenthetical about the checked date is slightly noisy, but nothing is truly wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe what comes back, and it does: step-by-step screens, buttons, and fields. Combined with the follow-up browser-tool guidance, an agent has enough to use this correctly. The only gap is that it never names the sibling tools it replaces for direct data retrieval.

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 for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 (export sales report in the user's own Bandcamp account) and immediately clarifies the key twist: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the export. That distinguishes it from action tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling bandcamp_list_sales.

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?

Explains the follow-up path clearly: use this to get the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Bandcamp Cloud Browser. It also explains why this route exists (Bandcamp's official API is limited to labels and fulfillment partners), which is strong context. It lacks an explicit 'do not use this if X' exclusion.

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