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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/free-of-side-effects, so the safety bar is covered. Beyond that, the description adds two useful behavioral facts not in structured fields: it is 'Free, no browser session' (no session or credit consumed, so it is cheap to call preemptively) and it degrades gracefully to a 'general method' for apps outside the catalog.

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?

No filler and roughly three sentences, but the first sentence is a long run-on list of returned artifacts without bullets or parallel structure ('the app's screens, menus and actions, notes, and the app's dedicated tools when Cotlet has them'), which slows parsing of the most important content. Front-loading the pre-step call trigger would improve it.

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?

For a two-parameter, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, when to call it, and its cost/fallback behavior. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, though a hint about what the guidance looks like (prose vs. structured steps) would close the last gap.

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 the app and task parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description alludes to the app parameter indirectly ('one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method') but adds no meaning about how app slug vs. name is resolved or how task shapes the returned guidance.

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 guidance tool: it returns which browser to use for the workspace, the sign-in link, the step-by-step method, the app's screens/menus/actions, notes, and any dedicated Cotlet tools. The verb is implicit ('how to work') rather than a crisp 'returns guidance for X', but the content of the response is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from the cotlet_browser_* action tools.

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.' It also covers scope ('Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method'), so the agent knows the fallback behavior for uncatalogued apps. No explicit exclusions or naming of alternative tools, 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.