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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/no-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the genuinely useful trait that the tool 'opens nothing by itself' and returns screens, buttons and fields instead of executing anything. It does not state the exact return format (e.g., structured vs. prose) or whether the guidance is stable across UI changes, but the side-effect profile is unambiguous.

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 core behaviour and the handoff to cotlet_browser_* are front-loaded and earn their place. The third sentence about Bloomerang's official API and MCP availability as of 22 Oct 2026 is vendor background that does not help an agent decide to call or how to call, adding unnecessary length to a short description.

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 zero-parameter guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields), that it performs no actions, and which tools to use next. That is sufficient to invoke it correctly; only the precise shape of the returned instructions is left unstated.

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 with 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource (search constituents in the user's Bloomerang account) and then corrects the implication of the title by stating it 'Returns how to do it in Bloomerang step by step... and opens nothing by itself', so an agent can tell it is a guidance tool rather than an executor. The final sentence about Bloomerang's REST API vs. MCP server is background rather than purpose, slightly diluting the opening.

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 clear workflow: call this to get the step-by-step, then perform the search with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. It does not explicitly compare itself to the other bloomerang_* siblings (create_task, list_lapsed_donors, merge_duplicate_constituents), so an agent must infer the distinction from the names, but the guidance for correct invocation is present.

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