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 new context: it is free and opens no browser session, it reads workspace/browser configuration and a sign-in link, and it falls back to a general method for apps outside the catalog. It does not describe the shape or length of the returned guidance.

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?

Roughly four sentences with no filler and the sequencing instruction front-loaded after the content list. The first sentence is an overlong enumeration that would be easier to scan as a short list, and 'notes' is left unqualified.

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 takes on the job of saying what comes back, and it does so by listing browser choice, sign-in link, method, screens, menus, actions and notes. Remaining gaps — response format and behavior for an unknown app slug — are minor for a zero-required-parameter, read-only guidance tool.

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% and both parameters (app, task) are documented in the schema, including the Contractor+ default. The description adds no further meaning about how app slugs are resolved or how the optional task shapes the returned method, so it only matches rather than extends the schema.

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 makes clear this is a knowledge/guidance tool that explains how to operate a web app through Cotlet's Cloud Browser, and it enumerates what the guidance contains (browser to use, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens, menus, actions, notes, dedicated tools). It is distinguishable from the browser_* action siblings and from cotlet_apps, though the opening sentence is a dense list rather than a crisp verb+resource statement.

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 triggering condition, and 'Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method' defines scope. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g., cotlet_apps for listing apps), but the sequencing rule leaves little ambiguity.

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