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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is low; the description still adds real value by stating 'Free, no browser session,' which tells the agent there is no cost or session side effect. It does not describe response shape, but no output schema exists and the content list largely covers it.

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 content is front-loaded with the payload of what the call returns, and every clause carries information. It is somewhat run-on as a single dense sentence, but nothing is clearly wasted.

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 output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it enumerates the returned guidance well. Minor gaps remain around what happens with an unknown app slug and how the returned method should be sequenced with cotlet_apps, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters (app name/slug with a 17hats default, and the user's task) are documented there. The description only implicitly extends this by implying unknown app names still yield the general method — marginal added meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns 'how to work in an app' — browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens, menus, actions, notes, and dedicated tools. This is clearly a guidance/lookup tool, distinguishable from the numerous cotlet_browser_* action siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call it before the first browser step in an app,' and notes it works for any web app with a fallback general method for uncatalogued apps. It does not, however, reference sibling cotlet_apps as the way to discover valid apps, leaving that routing implicit.

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