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 still adds value beyond them by disclosing cost behavior — free and no browser session is consumed — and by disclosing what the response will contain, including the workspace-specific browser choice and sign-in link. It does not describe response format or length, but the added cost and content signals are real beyond-annotation contributions.

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 enumerated return contents are front-loaded, and the operational directives (when to call, scope, cost) follow in short sentences. The middle colon-list is dense and slightly run-on, packing five distinct deliverables into one sentence, but every clause carries information 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?

For a read-only, zero-required-parameter guidance tool with no output schema, the agent needs to know what it will receive and when to call it, and the description covers both along with the cost profile. With annotations handling safety and the schema handling parameters, nothing operationally essential is missing; only the shape and likely size of the returned guide are left implicit.

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 already carry descriptions, including the Checkatrade default for `app`. The description adds only the general implication that the `app` value may fall outside Cotlet's catalog and still return a general method, which loosely relates to the `app` parameter but adds no format, slug, or fallback syntax guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 concretely and enumerates the payload an agent will get back: target browser plus sign-in link, a step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and any app-specific tools. This is clearly distinguishable from the cotlet_browser_* action siblings because it is explicitly a pre-step briefing, not an action. It stops short of 5 only because the opening phrasing is a run-on phrase rather than a crisp verb+resource statement, and it never contrasts itself with cotlet_apps, the catalog lister.

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 hard sequencing rule, and "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" defines the scope boundary so the agent knows it need not pre-qualify the app. "Free, no browser session" removes the main hesitation about calling a browser-related tool speculatively. There is no explicit when-not or a named alternative to skip to, which keeps it below 5.

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