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

With readOnlyHint/idempotentHint already declared, the description still adds real behavioral value: 'Free, no browser session' tells the agent this call costs nothing and does not open a Cloud Browser session, which matters in a toolset full of session-consuming browser ops. It also describes the shape of the content returned (method, screens, menus, notes, dedicated tools). It stops short of stating whether the guidance is cached or whether a missing/unknown app degrades gracefully beyond the catalog note.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the content inventory follows, then the timing rule and the free/no-session caveat. The middle sentence is a long comma-chained list that is slightly hard to parse, but every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return value, and it does so concretely (browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, dedicated tools). For a read-only, two-optional-parameter guidance call, nothing material is missing; the free/no-session note closes the main operational question.

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%, so both 'app' and 'task' are already documented, including the Appointy default. The description references 'this workspace' and 'any web app' but adds no new semantics for how app slug vs display name is resolved or how 'task' shapes the returned guidance. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the weight.

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 the resource (an app inside the user's Cloud Browser) and enumerates what the call yields: which browser for the workspace, the sign-in link, the step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and any dedicated app tools. That distinguishes it from the cotlet_browser_* siblings, which perform steps rather than explain them. It never uses an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'fetches', so the agent must infer this is a guidance/retrieval call rather than an action.

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 timing rule that maps cleanly onto the sibling browser tools. 'Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method' sets expectations for uncovered apps. No explicit 'do not call if...' exclusion is given, so it sits just below the top band.

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