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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: 'opens nothing by itself' tells the agent this call has no side effects and only returns guidance, which resolves the ambiguity created by the 'list' naming. It also flags the absence of a DistroKid public API, which explains why a browser-based path exists.

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 behavior is front-loaded and useful, but filler creeps in ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') and the parenthetical API audit ('checked 28 Oct 2026') plus a future-dated stamp add noise without helping the agent decide or call.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what comes back. It partially does ('screens, buttons, fields'), which is a reasonable sketch, but it does not say whether the result is prose, structured steps, or which screen the guide starts from, leaving a gap for an agent that must act on the output.

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 no parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. The description does not invent or misstate any inputs.

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 first sentence says it will 'List earnings rows in the user's own DistroKid account', but the second sentence reveals the tool actually returns step-by-step instructions rather than the rows themselves. That contradiction with the name leaves the agent unsure whether calling it produces data or a how-to guide, though the intent is recoverable from 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 workflow ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's DistroKid Cloud Browser'), which is real usage context. But it never distinguishes itself from sibling tools like distrokid_get_earnings_by_store, distrokid_get_daily_stats, or cotlet_app_guide, so there is no guidance on when this is the right choice versus those.

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