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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context with 'Free, no browser session' – telling the agent this call costs no Cloud Browser session – plus the note that uncatalogued apps get the general method. It does not describe the shape or length of the returned guidance, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 trigger ('Call it before the first browser step in an app') is front-loaded and the closing sentences are short and functional. The opening sentence is a long comma-chained list that could be trimmed, but almost every item maps to real return content rather than 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 must carry the return-value burden, and it does list the guide's contents reasonably well. However, for a guidance tool in a 26-tool family it does not say how the output should be consumed (e.g. whether the recommended browser must be opened with cotlet_browser_open first, or how app-specific tools relate to the generic browser steps).

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%, so both parameters are documented in the schema, and the description only lightly echoes them ('which browser to use for this workspace', the app's dedicated tools). It never explains how the 'task' parameter changes the returned guidance, which would be the one piece of meaning the schema does not already carry. 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 names a specific verb+resource ('How to work in an app') and enumerates exactly what the guide returns: browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions and app-specific tools. It implicitly separates itself from the cotlet_browser_* siblings by being the pre-flight guide rather than an action, 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 crisp trigger condition, and 'Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method' sets coverage expectations. It stops short of naming the alternative action tools or stating any when-not-to-call case, so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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