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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it 'opens nothing by itself' and returns a procedure rather than a mutation, which resolves the tension between the name and the readOnly annotation. It does not describe the shape of the returned steps any further, and the API paragraph is informational rather than behavioral.

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 most important fact — that this returns instructions and performs nothing — is buried in the second clause of the second sentence, behind a leading clause that suggests the opposite. The third sentence about DonorPerfect's XML API and lack of an MCP server is tangential justification that does not help the agent call the tool, and the dated '(checked 23 Oct 2026)' aside is filler.

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, no-output-schema tool the description covers the return type (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields) and the follow-up workflow, which is reasonable. However, it never explains how the target donor is identified when the tool takes no arguments — the single biggest thing an agent needs to know before calling it.

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 parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to add — baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to document 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 description states a specific verb+resource and — crucially — clarifies that it returns step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields) rather than performing the update. That distinguishes it from the mutating donorperfect_add_* / create_* siblings. It loses a point because the leading clause 'Update donor in the user's own DonorPerfect account' reads like a write operation and has to be corrected by the following sentence, so a skimming agent can misread the purpose.

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 clear operating context: call this to get the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the DonorPerfect Cloud Browser. That is real routing guidance to a named tool family. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it — e.g. whether to search_donors first to identify the record, or to prefer a direct-API sibling.

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