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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: "Free, no browser session" tells the agent this call consumes no Cloud Browser session, which matters for sequencing before browser work. It does not describe the shape or length of the returned guide.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the capability before the call-timing rule; the enumerations earn their place by telling the agent what content to expect. The first sentence is dense and comma-chained, which slightly slows scanning, but there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by enumerating browser choice, sign-in link, method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and dedicated tools. Combined with the two documented parameters and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the exact return format is 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are described in-schema, including the Billetto default for `app`. The description adds no meaning beyond that — it does not say whether `task` changes the guide's granularity or whether a slug vs. a display name is preferred. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource — a per-app guide covering browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, and app-specific tools — which is clearly distinct from the cotlet_browser_* action siblings. It stops short of a crisp verb+resource statement because the opening is a long nominal list, but an agent can tell what it retrieves.

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 an explicit trigger point, and "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" pre-empts the fallback question. No explicit when-not or named alternative sibling is given, so it falls 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.