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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable context: "Free, no browser session" tells the agent this call consumes no Cloud Browser session and costs nothing, which matters when budgeting browser steps. It does not say how large the returned guide is or whether it is cached, a minor remaining gap.

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 core instruction ("Call it before the first browser step in an app") is a short, high-value sentence, but the opening sentence is an overlong list of return contents that is hard to parse on first read. The framing sentence could be moved ahead of the enumeration so the actionable guidance is truly front-loaded.

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 explaining what comes back, and it does so: browser selection, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and dedicated tools. Combined with the two documented parameters and full annotation coverage, an agent has enough to invoke this correctly before its first browser step.

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%, with both `app` (name or Cotlet slug, default BrightLocal) and `task` documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description references "which browser to use for this workspace" and "the app's dedicated tools," which hints at what `app` unlocks, but it adds no syntax or formatting guidance for `task` beyond what the schema states.

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 resource (a per-app operating guide covering browser choice, sign-in link, method, screens, menus, actions, notes, and dedicated tools) retrieved from Cotlet's Cloud Browser toolset. It implicitly differentiates itself from the cotlet_browser_* action tools by being the pre-flight guide, though the verb is buried inside a long noun phrase rather than stated up front.

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 is exactly the routing signal an agent needs against the many cotlet_browser_* siblings. It also covers scope ("Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method"). It stops short of naming an alternative tool (e.g., cotlet_apps for discovery), so no exclusions are stated.

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