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 structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: 'Free, no browser session' tells the agent this call consumes no session/credits, which materially affects call ordering decisions. It does not describe response size or format, but with annotations carrying the safety burden this is solid.

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 covered content are front-loaded, and the operational facts (call timing, universal applicability, no session cost) close the description. The middle content list is dense and comma-heavy, bordering on run-on, but every clause maps to something the agent needs to decide whether to call the tool.

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 saying what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the guide's contents (browser selection, sign-in link, method, screens/menus/actions, notes, dedicated tools). Combined with the call-timing rule and the free/no-session note, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. Only the response shape (text vs structured) is left 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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (app, task) are documented in the schema, including the 'Bloom' default and the max lengths. The description only loosely implies the parameters ('which browser to use for this workspace', 'in an app') without adding format or slug guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already does the work.

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 concrete purpose: retrieving guidance on how to operate an app in the Cloud Browser, enumerating what the guide covers (browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, dedicated tools). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling browser action tools (cotlet_browser_click, cotlet_browser_navigate, etc.) because it is a read-only guide lookup, not an action. It is slightly weakened by being framed as a content list rather than a single 'returns X' statement.

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?

Explicit timing guidance is given: 'Call it before the first browser step in an app,' which tells the agent exactly where this fits in a workflow. It also clarifies coverage scope: works for any web app, and apps outside Cotlet's catalog fall back to the general method. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or pointer to a specific alternative sibling, but the placement guidance is strong.

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