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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two facts not in the annotations: the call is free and opens no browser session, which matters because the surrounding siblings do consume a session. It does not say how large the returned guide is or whether it is cached per app, but the added cost/session context is real value.

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 right but the delivery is a single dense sentence enumerating six items, followed by three short fragments. The imperative 'Call it before the first browser step' is buried mid-paragraph rather than front-loaded, and the enumeration could be trimmed to the two or three guide elements that actually affect an agent's decision.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the payload, and it does: browser choice, sign-in link, method, screens/menus/actions, notes, dedicated tools. For a zero-required-parameter, read-only guidance tool this is close to complete; only the shape and size of the returned guide are left unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself carries the useful detail, including the Alegra default. The description only gestures at the parameters ('which browser to use for this workspace', 'the app's dedicated tools') without explaining how the app or task arguments change the returned guide. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 names a concrete deliverable: a guide covering which browser to use, the sign-in link, the step-by-step method, the app's screens/menus/actions, notes, and dedicated tools. That is more than a restated title and is distinguishable from the cotlet_browser_* siblings, which perform actions rather than explain them. It stops short of a crisp one-line 'returns usage guidance for app X' framing, which is why it is not 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?

Explicit timing is given: 'Call it before the first browser step in an app.' It also handles the edge case that an app outside Cotlet's catalog still gets the general method, so an agent knows the tool is never the wrong choice. What is missing is a direct contrast such as 'do not call this instead of cotlet_apps when you only need the app list', leaving the routing to siblings implicit.

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