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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by confirming it 'opens nothing by itself' and by disclosing the auth obstacle — the official API needs an Artist Pro subscription to register an app — which explains why the browser route exists. It does not describe the shape of the returned guide beyond the parenthetical, so it adds context but not full depth.

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 important facts — it returns a step-by-step guide and performs no action — are front-loaded, which is correct. However, 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is pure filler, and the date-stamped aside about SoundCloud's public API ('checked 30 Oct 2026') is tangential detail that dilutes the core instruction.

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 tool with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: that the result is procedural instructions rather than message data, and that the follow-up happens through cotlet_browser_* tools. It could be fuller on where the user must already be logged in or which browser session to open, but nothing essential is absent.

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 and the description has nothing to document. No parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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 specific verb and resource and then, crucially, clarifies that the tool does not itself read anything — it 'Returns how to do it in SoundCloud step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' That corrects the misleading name and tells an agent what it actually gets. It stops short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from nearby guide-style siblings such as cotlet_app_guide.

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 an explicit workflow: call this to get the steps, 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's SoundCloud Cloud Browser.' That is clear context for when to reach for it. It offers no exclusion or comparison against cotlet_app_guide or soundcloud_check_if_you_messaged_a_profile, so the agent must infer which guide-style tool to pick.

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