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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it explicitly says the tool opens nothing by itself and only returns instructions. The sentence about Discord's official API being bot-scoped rather than acting as the user explains why the browser path exists, though it does not describe the shape of the returned guide.

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 (returns steps, opens nothing, follow up with cotlet_browser_*) is front-loaded and compact. The trailing sentence about Discord's official API and the odd future date 'checked 5 Nov 2026' is tangential and does not help an agent decide or invoke, so it 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, read-only guide tool with no output schema, the description covers what happens and what to do next. It does not say whether a Cloud Browser session must already be open before following the returned steps, nor what the returned instructions look like, which are the remaining decision-relevant gaps.

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 description correctly implies no input is needed, so there is nothing for the schema to document and nothing further for the description to add. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool 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 description does eventually state the real behavior — it 'returns how to do it in Discord step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself' — but the leading sentence ('Search messages in the user's own Discord account') describes a capability the tool does not itself perform. It names the cotlet_browser_* follow-up but does not distinguish this from siblings like discord_read_channel_messages or cotlet_app_guide, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 follow-up workflow is explicit: get the steps here, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Discord Cloud Browser. What is missing is an exclusion — nothing says when to use discord_read_channel_messages or cotlet_app_guide instead of this guide tool.

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