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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior; the description adds the key non-obvious trait that this tool 'opens nothing by itself' and returns instructions rather than performing actions. That is genuinely useful context an agent cannot get from the hints. Auth, rate limits, and return format details are not covered, but they are minor for a pure guidance tool.

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 and the follow-up browser step are front-loaded, which is good. However, the closing tangent about Printful's REST API, OAuth, and the 'checked 17 Oct 2026' audit note consumes roughly a third of the text without helping the agent call this tool correctly.

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 parameters, no output schema, and simple read-only semantics, the description covers what the agent needs: what comes back (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and what to do next. The only gap is the precise return format (structured steps vs. prose), which is a minor omission at this complexity level.

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 and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage, so there is nothing to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies no inputs are needed because it only returns instructions.

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 the verb and resource (check shipping rates in the user's Printful account) and then clarifies the actual mechanism: it 'Returns how to do it in Printful step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' That distinction separates it from the cotlet_browser_* siblings that perform the actions. The leading phrasing 'Check shipping rates' slightly oversells it as a rate-fetching call before the correction lands, which keeps it from a 5.

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 workflow: call this to get step-by-step instructions, then execute them 'with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Printful Cloud Browser.' It also notes no official MCP server exists, which explains why the browser route is required. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., versus cotlet_app_guide or cotlet_apps), so it falls short of a 5.

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