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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's main added value is "Free, no browser session" — a genuinely non-obvious cost/side-effect disclosure that tells the agent calling this cannot burn browser credits or open a session. It also previews the shape of the returned guidance. Minor gap: no indication of response size or whether guidance is cached/stale.

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 in the first clause, followed by a compact enumeration of contents, the call trigger, and the scope caveat. It is dense but every sentence carries information; only the long enumerated first sentence could be tightened.

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 convey the return contents, which it does by listing the guidance categories the agent will receive. Combined with the explicit pre-browser-step trigger and the no-session/free note, an agent has enough to decide and call correctly; only the volume/format of the response is left unspecified.

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 documented in-schema, including the Bandcamp default, so the baseline applies. The description adds only indirect meaning — that `app` may name something outside Cotlet's catalog and that `task` drives which method is returned — without format or resolution details. Adequate but not enriching beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: it returns guidance for operating an app through Cotlet's browser tools, enumerating what's included (browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, dedicated tools). It implicitly separates itself from the cotlet_browser_* action tools and cotlet_apps catalog, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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" gives a clear trigger point in the workflow, and "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" defines the scope and the fallback behavior. It does not state when to skip it or name a specific alternative such as cotlet_apps for pure catalog lookups, so 4 rather than 5.

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