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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: 'opens nothing by itself' and the fact that it returns screens/buttons/fields rather than performing the action. It does not explain whether the guide is account-specific or generic, which matters for a zero-parameter tool.

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 operational content is front-loaded and compact: what it returns, that it opens nothing, and which tools to use next. However, the trailing paragraph about Discogs's REST API v2 and the absence of an official MCP server (with a dated 'checked 17 Oct 2026' aside) is justification/boilerplate that does not help the agent invoke this tool. That sentence dilutes an otherwise tight 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema guide tool, the description does cover what is returned (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and the handoff to browser tools. The notable gap is that it never says how the specific buyer or order is identified, since the tool accepts no arguments — an agent may not know whether to supply that context in a prompt or look it up first. The API availability note is background rather than a completion of the calling requirements.

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 fully self-describing, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The only residual question — how the buyer/order identity is conveyed — is a contextual gap rather than a parameter-documentation gap.

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 verb+resource (message a buyer in the user's Discogs account) and immediately clarifies that the tool itself only returns step-by-step instructions rather than sending anything. The name alone would mislead an agent into thinking it performs the action, but the second sentence corrects that. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like discogs_update_order_status, which also touches buyer/order communication.

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 steps, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Discogs Cloud Browser. That routes the agent to the correct follow-up tools. It stops short of stating when this is preferable to a direct API-style sibling or what prerequisite context (which buyer, which order) the agent must already hold.

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