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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. It adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations by stating that the tool opens nothing and returns screen/button/field-level instructions, which is the key behavioral fact for an agent deciding whether to call it before acting.

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-clause statement of what is returned and what is not opened is front-loaded and efficient. The trailing sentence about DonorPerfect's XML API, lack of an official MCP server and a verification date adds no selection value and dilutes the message.

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 correctly spends its words on the return value (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and on the handoff to the browser tools. For a zero-parameter guidance tool this is essentially complete; only the missing note on why no query parameter exists holds it back.

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, which is the baseline case where the description has little to explain. However, it never addresses how the search target is conveyed given the empty schema, leaving a small ambiguity for a tool whose name implies a query input.

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 the resource (donors in the user's DonorPerfect account) and then clarifies the real nature of the tool: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than executing a search. The opening sentence reads like an actual search, which is slightly misleading, but the correction is explicit enough that an agent can tell this apart from donorperfect_update_donor and the cotlet_browser_* action 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 concrete workflow: get the steps here, then perform them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the DonorPerfect Cloud Browser, and states that this tool opens nothing by itself. What it does not state is when not to use it (e.g., versus cotlet_app_guide or the direct mutation siblings), so the routing is clear in one direction only.

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