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

The key behavioral disclosure — 'opens nothing by itself' — meaningfully extends the readOnlyHint=true annotation by telling the agent no UI action occurs. Beyond that, the Discord API/OAuth sentence is informational trivia rather than behavior, and nothing is said about what the returned instructions look like in structure or whether they can fail.

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 core two clauses are well front-loaded and earn their place, but the trailing Discord official-API explanation (with a speculative 'checked 5 Nov 2026' date) is tangential justification that consumes roughly half the text without helping the agent call the 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, the description carries the burden of describing the return value and does so explicitly (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields). Combined with the no-side-effect disclosure and the handoff to browser tools, an agent has enough to decide and act, with only sibling differentiation against cotlet_app_guide left ambiguous.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. The description does not explain why no arguments are needed (e.g. the recipient/details are gathered later in the browser step), leaving a small gap in understanding the interaction model.

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 clearly states the tool returns a step-by-step Discord DM walkthrough (screens, buttons, fields) rather than performing the send, which usefully corrects the misleading 'send_dm' name. It also names the sibling family (cotlet_browser_*) that actually executes the action, so an agent can distinguish this planning tool from the execution tools.

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 sequencing hint — get steps here, then act with cotlet_browser_* tools — which implies when to use it. However it never says when NOT to use it (e.g. vs. cotlet_app_guide, which likely serves a similar guidance role) and offers no preconditions or disambiguation against that sibling.

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