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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by stating it 'opens nothing by itself' and that it returns screen/button/field-level instructions. The API-availability note ('no MCP server for AI agents, checked 22 Oct 2026') is extra context an agent could use to justify the browser path, though it is tangential to the tool's own behavior.

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 operative facts (returns steps, opens nothing, use cotlet_browser_* next) are present but buried after a misleading lead clause, and the trailing 'official API' sentence is metadata that does not help an agent call this tool. Front-loading the guidance nature would make it materially shorter and clearer.

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 and no output schema, the description does explain the return shape (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields), which is the main thing an agent needs. However, it never defines 'lapsed' (no time window or criteria) and does not say whether the returned steps are tailored to a given account state, leaving a real ambiguity for a zero-arg tool.

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 the baseline is 4. The description introduces no parameter-level semantics, but none are needed given the empty schema and 100% coverage.

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 opens with 'List lapsed donors in the user's own Bloomerang account,' which reads like the tool performs the listing, then reverses course with 'Returns how to do it in Bloomerang step by step... and opens nothing by itself.' The real purpose (a guide that returns instructions, not data) is stated, but only after a misleading lead sentence, so an agent skimming the first clause could mis-select it expecting donor records.

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?

It gives a concrete workflow: get the steps here, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Bloomerang Cloud Browser. That is clear routing guidance to sibling tools, though it never states when NOT to use this (e.g., for API-based alternatives or other donor queries).

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