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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context the annotations cannot convey: 'Free, no browser session' tells the agent there is no cost or live session consumed, and the fallback behavior for uncatalogued apps is disclosed.

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 trigger sentence ('Call it before the first browser step') is short and front-loaded after the content inventory. The opening sentence is a long colon-led list that is dense but every item maps to real returned content, so little is 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 carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the guide's sections. Combined with the pre-first-step call rule and the free/no-session note, an agent has enough to decide and invoke correctly; only the 'task' input's effect on the result is unexplained.

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%, so both parameters (app, task) are already documented, including the Accelo default. The line 'Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method' adds a little meaning about how an unrecognized app value is handled, but the 'task' parameter gets no treatment in the description. Baseline 3 applies.

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 makes clear this is a guidance/knowledge tool, not a browser action: it returns which browser to use, the sign-in link, a step-by-step method, the app's screens/menus/actions, notes, and any dedicated app tools. That enumerates the payload precisely enough to separate it from the many cotlet_browser_* siblings. It lacks a crisp verb ('returns guidance for...'), 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 an explicit trigger: 'Call it before the first browser step in an app,' and extends coverage to any web app, including ones outside the catalog that fall back to the general method. It does not name alternatives (e.g., cotlet_apps for listing apps, or skipping the guide once the method is known), so no when-not guidance.

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