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. The description adds genuinely non-obvious operational facts: no cost ('Free'), no browser session consumed, and graceful degradation for apps outside the catalog. It does not describe how large the returned guidance is or whether it is cached per app.

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 call-to-action and the contents are front-loaded, and the two trailing sentences are short and load-bearing. The opening sentence is a run-on with a comma-spliced list whose 'notes' item is vague filler, which costs it a point.

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?

For a zero-cost guidance lookup with no output schema, an agent needs to know when to call it, what it returns conceptually, and that it creates no side effects — all of which are stated. Only the size/shape of the returned guidance is left open, which is a minor gap.

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 documented in the schema, including the Chatwoot default and the 500-character task string. The description adds only indirect meaning — that an unrecognized 'app' value still yields the general method — and says nothing about how 'task' shapes the returned method. 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 names the resource (an in-app working guide) and what it delivers: which browser to use for the workspace, the sign-in link, the step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, and any dedicated app tools. It is clearly a pre-flight lookup rather than an action, which separates it from the cotlet_browser_* siblings. The wording is a sprawling enumeration rather than a crisp verb+resource statement, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Call it before the first browser step in an app,' which places it unambiguously ahead of the browser_* tools. It also covers the fallback case ('one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method'). It stops short of naming a competing sibling to use instead when a dedicated app tool already exists.

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