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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the call is "Free, no browser session," which tells the agent it costs nothing and does not open or mutate the browser. It also discloses the fallback behavior for apps outside the catalog, which no annotation conveys.

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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose and ends with the cost/session caveat, and there is no filler. The first sentence is a long comma-chained list of guide contents that is slightly harder to parse than it needs to be, but nothing is redundant.

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 describing return content and does so thoroughly (browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, UI map, notes, dedicated tools). The only gap is that it never states the format or size of the guide the agent should expect to consume.

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 carry their own descriptions (app name or slug with a DistroKid default; task in the user's words), so the baseline is 3. The description text itself adds no meaning about how `app` and `task` shape the returned guide.

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 enumerates concretely what the tool yields: which browser to use for the workspace, the sign-in link, the step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and any dedicated app tools. It implicitly reads as a reference/guide retrieval tool rather than a browser action, distinguishing it from the cotlet_browser_* siblings, though it never uses a crisp verb like "returns" or "fetches" to remove all doubt.

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 clear, actionable trigger, and "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" sets expectations for uncatalogued apps. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g., cotlet_apps for listing apps) or stating exclusions, so it is clear context without full when/when-not coverage.

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