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 genuinely new behavioral facts: it is free and opens no browser session, and it degrades gracefully to a general method for uncatalogued apps. It does not describe the shape of the returned guidance, but that is a minor gap.

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 call trigger are front-loaded, and the enumerated contents are informative rather than filler. The single long sentence with embedded lists is dense and slightly harder to scan than a short structured form, but no clause 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so explicitly (browser choice, sign-in link, method, screens, menus, actions, notes, dedicated tools). For a two-optional-parameter read-only guide tool, an agent has everything needed 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 are optional with documented defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by listing the concrete Anaplan actions the guide covers, which tells the agent what the 'app' parameter actually unlocks for the default case.

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 specific resource (a per-app working guide) and enumerates its contents: which browser to use, the sign-in link, the step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and dedicated tools. It is clearly distinguishable from the cotlet_browser_* siblings, which perform the steps rather than describe them.

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 states coverage breadth ('Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method'). It does not name a when-not case or an alternative tool, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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