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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds two facts not in annotations — it is free and opens no browser session — which matter for cost and side-effect decisions. It does not describe output size or format beyond the content list.

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 content inventory lead, and the two operational constraints (call before the first step; free, no session) close it. The first sentence is a dense comma-list that takes a second pass to parse, but no sentence 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 carries the burden of saying what comes back and does so by enumerating the guide's contents. Combined with the always-works fallback and the no-cost note, an agent has everything needed to decide to call it and what to expect.

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 (app, task) are documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description gestures at the app parameter ("which browser to use for this workspace", "the app's screens") but adds no format or usage detail beyond the schema's own examples.

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?

States a specific resource (a per-app working guide for the Cloud Browser) and enumerates what it contains: browser choice, sign-in link, method, screens, menus, actions, notes, dedicated tools. An agent can tell this is documentation retrieval rather than a browser action, though it never names the browser_* siblings it is meant to precede.

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?

Gives a clear trigger: "Call it before the first browser step in an app." Also covers the fallback case — an app outside Cotlet's catalog still returns the general method — so the agent knows a miss is not fatal. No explicit when-not or named alternative, which keeps it from a 5.

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