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 operational facts: the call is free and opens no browser session, and the returned guidance adapts depending on whether Cotlet has dedicated tools for that app. It does not say what the response actually looks like (prose vs structured sections), which is the remaining gap.

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 opening sentence is a long comma-chained list that buries the core purpose ('returns guidance for working in an app') behind enumerations. The following short sentences ('Call it before the first browser step', 'Free, no browser session') are well-placed and high-value, but the lead is bloated and not cleanly front-loaded.

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 two-optional-parameter, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: when to call it, that it works for any web app, that it costs nothing and starts no session, and roughly what content comes back. The only shortfall is not describing the shape of the returned guidance or how `task` influences it.

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 are documented in the schema, including the 'Discogs' default for `app`. The description adds nothing parameter-specific — it never mentions that a free-text `task` can be supplied to tailor the guidance, which would have been the one useful addition. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and intent: it returns guidance on how to operate an app through Cotlet's browser tools, enumerating what the guidance contains (browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens, menus, actions, notes, dedicated tools). It is clearly a knowledge/lookup tool rather than an action tool like the cotlet_browser_* siblings, though it never names a sibling explicitly to sharpen that contrast.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Call it before the first browser step in an app.' It also covers the edge case of apps outside Cotlet's catalog, which get the general method. What's missing is a when-not or a named alternative (e.g. cotlet_apps for listing apps), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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