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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new context on top: the return content (screens, buttons, fields) and the absence of side effects ("opens nothing by itself"). The API-access note explains why browser automation is required, which is useful auth/access context. Minor gap: nothing about what happens if the user is not logged in to Bandcamp.

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 qualifier ("returns how to do it... opens nothing by itself") is buried mid-paragraph rather than front-loaded, and it should be the lead. The opening clause about ChatGPT/Claude/any AI agent and the "checked 11 Oct 2026" timestamp are filler that dilute an otherwise short definition.

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 params, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description carries the remaining burden and does so: it says what is returned, that nothing is executed, and which tool family performs the action. Adequate for a zero-parameter guidance tool, with only the unauthenticated-user case 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and no schema gap to compensate for. The description correctly implies no input is needed before the agent calls it.

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+resource ("Mark order shipped in the user's own Bandcamp account") and immediately qualifies the real behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the write. This resolves the tension between the action-oriented name and the readOnly annotation. Slightly diffuse because the framing "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" adds no distinguishing information.

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?

Explicitly gives the follow-up path: "opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Bandcamp Cloud Browser," which tells the agent exactly what to call after this tool. It also implicitly excludes the API route by explaining partners-only access. No explicit contrast with siblings like bandcamp_list_merch_orders, but the workflow guidance is clear.

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