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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description still adds meaningful behavior beyond them: it explicitly says nothing is opened or executed by the tool and that the output is a step-by-step procedure describing screens, buttons and fields — a non-obvious trait given the action-oriented name. It does not describe formatting granularity or length of the returned steps.

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 behavioral fact ('opens nothing by itself') is buried mid-sentence rather than front-loaded, and the opening marketing phrasing about ChatGPT/Claude/AI agents wastes space. The trailing sentence about Discogs' REST API v2 and the absence of an official MCP server ('checked 17 Oct 2026') is background justification that does not help an agent decide whether or how to invoke this tool.

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 output schema and no parameters, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so by naming the shape of the response (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields). It also names the follow-up tool family needed to act on the guidance. What is missing is any indication of how to handle failures (e.g. if no Cloud Browser session exists) or the scope of the returned procedure.

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 and the schema is an empty object with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 corrects the misleading name by stating the tool 'Returns how to do it in Discogs step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself' — i.e. it is a guidance tool, not a listing operation. That is a specific, callable purpose. The opening sentence ('List copies for sale in the user's own Discogs account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') is muddled and reads like the tool performs the listing, which slightly undercuts the clarity it later establishes.

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 clear routing: call this first to get the procedure, 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Discogs Cloud Browser'. That names the concrete alternatives and the sequence. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions (e.g. when to skip this and use cotlet_app_guide or discogs_search_releases instead), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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