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

The description explains the surprising behavior behind readOnlyHint=true: the tool returns screens/buttons/fields guidance and performs no side effects, which resolves what could otherwise look like a mismatch between the name "duplicate" and a read-only annotation. The closing note about Privy's paid public API and read-only MCP server adds context but is vague about whether it constrains this specific 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 operative behavior is front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is the right structure. The trailing sentence about Privy's API plans and the "(checked 23 Oct 2026)" parenthetical are tangential and do not clearly change how the agent should 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 zero-parameter, non-destructive guidance tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it returns (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields), what it does not do (opens nothing), and which tools complete the workflow. Only the vague API-availability remark leaves a minor loose end.

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 description correctly makes no parameter claims, so nothing is missing or misleading. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-param tool with no semantics to explain.

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 ("Duplicate campaign") and immediately clarifies the crucial nuance that it only returns step-by-step instructions and "opens nothing by itself." It also points to the cotlet_browser_* siblings that actually perform the action, so an agent can distinguish guidance from execution without opening a schema.

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 clear when-to-use context ("in the user's own Privy account") and an explicit next step ("then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Privy Cloud Browser"). It does not state when NOT to use it, e.g. versus privy_create_email_campaign or privy_list_campaigns, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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