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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses the return shape (screens, buttons, fields) and the critical fact that the tool performs no action itself, preventing an agent from assuming the search happened. It does not describe how long the returned instructions are or what format they take.

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 earn their place. The closing sentence about Discogs's REST API v2 coverage and the absence of an official MCP server is tangential justification rather than operational guidance, and the parenthetical audit date adds nothing an agent can act on.

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 tool, the essential facts are present: it returns instructions rather than data, it takes no input, and the follow-up path is named. The only gap is the granularity or format of the returned instructions, which an agent might want to know before committing a turn.

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 closed, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not waste space inventing parameter guidance, which is correct here; the baseline of 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 name and title say "Search releases," but the operative sentence reveals the tool actually returns step-by-step instructions for performing that search and "opens nothing by itself." An agent gets there eventually, but the first sentence sets a false expectation of a data-returning search, which is a meaningful ambiguity for a tool whose siblings include real Discogs actions like discogs_add_release_to_collection.

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?

The description explicitly routes the agent: call this to get the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Discogs Cloud Browser. That is clear sequencing and names the alternative. It stops short of saying when to skip this tool entirely (e.g., versus cotlet_app_guide or cotlet_apps) or when the browser path is unnecessary.

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