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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally; the description reinforces this with "opens nothing by itself." It does not state prerequisites (a logged-in Discogs Cloud Browser session) or how the guide is scoped to the user's own account. The trailing paragraph about Discogs's REST API and the absence of an official MCP server is background trivia, not behavioral disclosure.

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 useful content is front-loaded but diluted: the lead clause repeats the title and lists AI platforms, and the final sentence about Discogs's API version and a checked date (17 Oct 2026) contributes nothing to invoking the tool. Roughly half the text is filler around two sentences of real instruction.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does: step-by-step screens, buttons and fields, plus the handoff to the browser tools. What is missing is the prerequisite state (an active Discogs Cloud Browser session and authenticated account) needed to act on the returned guide.

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; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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 the specific resource (a Discogs marketplace listing reprice) and clarifies the actual behavior: it "Returns how to do it in Discogs step by step (screens, buttons, fields)" rather than performing the reprice. This distinguishes it from the cotlet_browser_* siblings that carry out the action. The opening clause restates the title and adds platform fluff ("from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent"), so the real purpose only emerges in the second sentence.

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 two-step workflow: call this to get the guide, then execute it with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Discogs Cloud Browser. It also explicitly excludes side effects with "opens nothing by itself." It does not say when to prefer this over cotlet_app_guide or what to do if the user isn't in a Cloud Browser session, so exclusions are partial rather than complete.

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