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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context: it opens nothing by itself and returns screens/buttons/fields rather than performing the change. However, it does not disclose how the instruction output is scoped to a particular release, nor that the response is likely static guidance rather than account data.

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 first two sentences are front-loaded and efficient, describing the return value and the handoff to browser tools. The final sentence about Discogs's REST API v2 and the absence of an official MCP server is irrelevant marketing that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool, and the dated 'checked 17 Oct 2026' aside adds noise.

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 should explain the shape of what comes back and how to use it. It does say it returns step-by-step screens, buttons and fields, which is the key detail, but leaves open how the target release is identified and whether the steps are generic or account-specific.

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?

With zero parameters the schema baseline would be 4, and the schema is fully described trivially. The gap is that a wantlist operation normally needs a release identifier, and the description never explains that the release must be conveyed outside this call or handled entirely by the browser tools. That missing explanation is exactly the semantic information an agent would need here.

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 states a specific resource (a release in the user's own Discogs wantlist) and, importantly, clarifies that the tool does not perform the action but returns step-by-step instructions. This resolves the ambiguity created by a name that reads like a mutation, and it distinguishes the tool from the cotlet_browser_* siblings it feeds into. It stops short of 5 because the Discogs API sentence at the end muddies the focus rather than sharpening the purpose.

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 an explicit sequence: call this first to get the procedure, then execute with cotlet_browser_* in the user's Discogs Cloud Browser. That is a clear routing instruction to the relevant alternatives. It does not say when to prefer cotlet_app_guide, nor whether discogs_search_releases must be called first to identify the release, so the guidance is clear but incomplete.

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