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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces rather than contradicts them by explicitly saying it 'opens nothing by itself' and only returns a walkthrough of screens, buttons, and fields. It also discloses the execution environment (the user's Discord Cloud Browser) and the account context, which the annotations do not convey. It does not say what the returned guide contains per scenario or how the resulting browser actions are authorized.

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 behavioral clause ('returns how to do it step by step... opens nothing by itself') is front-loaded and useful. It is padded with marketing framing ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') and a long official-API aside ending in a dated verification stamp, neither of which helps an agent decide to 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?

For a no-parameter guide tool with a safety profile already covered by annotations, the essentials are present: what it returns, that it is inert, and which tool family completes the action. It omits how the agent should identify the server/channel (e.g., via discord_list_servers_and_channels) and how the message content is supplied, which an agent needs to use the guide effectively.

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?

Zero declared parameters, so the schema carries no semantics to add and the baseline of 4 applies. The one residual gap is that the description never explains how the target channel and message text are conveyed given there are no inputs, but nothing in the schema is left undocumented.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('send message in the user's own Discord account') and then clarifies the tool's actual behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the send. That clarification is essential and prevents the agent from mistaking it for an executor. It stops short of a 5 because it never distinguishes this from sibling discord_send_dm or discord_reply_to_message.

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 states the follow-on path clearly ('opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools'), which is real usage guidance, and it explains why the official Discord API is not an alternative. However, it gives no condition for choosing this over discord_send_dm or discord_reply_to_message, which are the closest and most confusable siblings.

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