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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety bar is low. The description adds meaningful non-annotation context: it costs nothing and opens no browser session ("Free, no browser session"), and it discloses degraded output for apps outside the catalog. It does not describe output shape or what happens when the app argument is omitted beyond the schema default.

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 purpose and the pre-flight call instruction are front-loaded, and every later clause maps to a concrete output the agent will receive. The first sentence is an unusually long comma-chained list, which costs some readability, but there is no filler.

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 full responsibility for describing returns and does so concretely (browser selection, sign-in link, method, screens, menus, actions, notes, dedicated tools). It also covers the universal-vs-catalog fallback, which is the main edge case for this tool.

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% with only two optional parameters, so the schema already explains both `app` and `task`. The description's mention of "which browser to use for this workspace and the sign-in link" describes returned content rather than adding meaning to the parameters, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 pre-flight guide retrieval tool, not a browser action: it returns workspace browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and dedicated tools. It also distinguishes itself from the browser_* siblings by telling the agent to call it before the first browser step. It stops short of explicitly naming the siblings it replaces (cotlet_apps for catalog lookup), so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

"Call it before the first browser step in an app" is an explicit triggering condition, and "one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" tells the agent the tool still applies to unlisted apps. There is no explicit when-not guidance or statement about calling it again mid-task, but the usage context is otherwise unambiguous.

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