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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new operational facts: it is free and consumes no browser session, and it degrades gracefully for uncatalogued apps. That cost/side-effect information is not derivable from the annotations. It stops short of describing the shape of what comes back, but no output schema exists to cover that either.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the operational constraint follows immediately after. The middle section is a long comma-chained inventory of returned content that is slightly dense, but every item listed tells the agent something it would otherwise have to discover by calling.

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, two-parameter, zero-required knowledge lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: when to call it and what category of information it returns. Only the return format and how guidance changes with the 'task' input remain unstated, which is a minor gap here.

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%, so both parameters (app, task) are already documented in the schema, including the Civitatis default. The description implies the guide is scoped to a workspace and an app but adds no meaning about how the free-text 'task' shapes the returned guidance, so it sits at the baseline.

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 (a per-app working guide) and enumerates the concrete content returned: which browser to use, the sign-in link, the step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and any app-dedicated tools. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling browser action tools, though it never contrasts itself with cotlet_apps, which an agent could confuse it with when looking up an app.

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 an explicit trigger point in the workflow, which is exactly the sequencing guidance an agent needs. It also notes the fallback for apps outside the catalog ('gets the general method'), but offers no when-not-to-call condition or explicit pointer to cotlet_apps as the catalog lister.

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