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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behaviour, and the description is consistent with that ('opens nothing by itself'). It adds genuine context beyond the annotations: the return value is an ordered screen/button/field guide, and no seller API or official MCP server exists. It doesn't state whether the guidance is static or account-specific, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the 'opens nothing by itself' caveat, then the follow-up, then the API-absence rationale — a logical order. Some phrasing is filler ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') and the dated API check is incidental, so it isn't razor-tight.

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 and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, which it does ('step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'). It also frames the tool correctly as read-only guidance within a browser-automation loop. It could be slightly more complete about what happens if the user's browser session is not authenticated.

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, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter meaning to add. The description correctly implies the call needs no arguments since everything is derived from the user's Redbubble session context.

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 gives a specific verb and resource and, crucially, resolves the ambiguity in the title/name by stating the tool 'Returns how to do it in Redbubble step by step... and opens nothing by itself' — i.e. it is a guide, not a mutation. It distinguishes itself from the cotlet_browser_* action tools by naming them as the follow-up. It stops short of naming a sibling it is *not*, so a 4 rather than 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?

The workflow is stated explicitly: call this to get the steps, then perform them with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Redbubble Cloud Browser. The 'opens nothing by itself' clause prevents misuse as an action tool. There is no explicit exclusion against related guidance siblings (e.g. cotlet_app_guide) or prerequisite about the Cloud Browser needing to be open, 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.