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

The annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable context: the call is 'Free, no browser session', i.e. it consumes no browser state and presumably no credits. It does not, however, reveal the shape or size of the returned guidance, which matters for an agent deciding whether to load it.

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 payload is compressed into one long run-on sentence with comma-spliced list fragments ('the method step by step, the app's screens, menus and actions, notes'), which is harder to scan than a short structured list. The final two sentences are tight and earn their place; 'notes' is left undefined.

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 say what comes back, and it does: browser selection, sign-in link, method, screens/menus/actions, and any dedicated tools. Combined with the front-loaded read-only annotations and the free/no-session note, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 carry descriptions including the Buildertrend default, so the schema does the work. The description adds no format hints for 'app' (name vs. slug) or about how 'task' shapes the returned guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 enumerates what the guide covers: browser choice and sign-in link, step-by-step method, the app's screens/menus/actions, notes, and app-specific tools. That is specific enough to separate it from the cotlet_browser_* action siblings, though the leading phrase 'How to work in an app' is awkward and the resource is only clarified later in the sentence.

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 concrete trigger point, and 'Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method' sets expectations for coverage. It stops short of naming the obvious alternative (cotlet_apps) or saying when it can be skipped, e.g. for a second action in the same app.

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