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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds real value beyond them by stating 'opens nothing by itself' and disclosing that the return payload is instructions (screens, buttons, fields), not data. It does not describe what the instructions look like when the user lacks the relevant Bandcamp permissions or what happens if the browser session is not set up.

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 key fact — that this returns a procedure, not orders — is front-loaded in the second sentence, and the API note explains why browser automation is required. The final sentence about Bandcamp's partner-only API is slightly dense and dates itself ('checked 11 Oct 2026'), but it earns its place as justification.

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 parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what is otherwise missing: the shape of the response (step-by-step UI instructions) and the required follow-up tool family. Only the handling of edge cases (missing account access, already-open browser) is left unaddressed.

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 no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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 ('List merch orders') and scopes it to 'the user's own Bandcamp account', plus makes the crucial clarification that the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than order data. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling bandcamp_list_sales or bandcamp_export_sales_report, so an agent must infer whether 'merch orders' overlaps with '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?

Gives clear usage context: this tool only produces a how-to walkthrough and 'opens nothing by itself', after which the agent should execute the steps with cotlet_browser_* tools in the Bandcamp Cloud Browser. It supplies the rationale (no API access for non-partners) but never explicitly says when to prefer a sibling such as bandcamp_list_sales.

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