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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description does add real context beyond that—"Free, no browser session"—telling the agent the call costs nothing and does not open or consume a browser, which is genuinely useful for planning. It says nothing about output size, latency, or caching, so it adds value but not richly.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the call-trigger, scope, and cost caveat in three short sentences. The opening sentence is a long comma-separated list that is dense but each item describes a distinct section of the guide, so little is wasted.

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 convey what comes back, and it does: browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and dedicated tools. For a two-optional-parameter read-only lookup this is close to complete; only the fallback behavior for an unknown app slug is 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 optional parameters are documented with a default ("Default: Connecteam"), so the baseline is 3. The description only loosely ties parameters to behavior—workspace-specific browser choice and any web app, catalog or not—without explaining how the task string shapes the returned method.

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 a specific resource—a per-app how-to guide for driving the Cloud Browser—and enumerates its contents (which browser, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens, menus, actions, notes, dedicated tools). It implicitly separates itself from the cotlet_browser_* action siblings by framing itself as the preparation step, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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, and "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" covers the boundary case. It stops short of stating when NOT to call it (e.g. when already mid-task or when cotlet_apps already gave you the app), so not a full 5.

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