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: 'Free, no browser session' tells the agent this costs nothing and does not consume the Cloud Browser, which matters for planning. It does not describe output format, but no output schema exists, so a little more on the shape of the returned guidance would have helped.

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 core message is front-loaded, but the definition is one long run-on sentence with heavy comma-listing, and the trailing enumeration of five e-Boekhouden actions is lengthy relative to its value. It is informative but could be split into 'what it returns / when to call it' with the action list trimmed.

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 read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what the guide contains, when to call it, its cost profile, and its fallback for uncatalogued apps. The only real gap is any indication of how large or structured the returned guidance is, which would help the agent budget context.

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% with only two optional parameters, so the schema already explains 'app' (name or slug, default e-Boekhouden) and 'task'. The description implies the guide is app- and task-tailored ('which browser to use for this workspace', 'the app's dedicated tools') and lists e-Boekhouden's supported actions, but adds no format or granularity guidance for the two arguments. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 the guide's contents (browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, dedicated tools) so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It also distinguishes itself from the cotlet_browser_* action tools by framing itself as the pre-step briefing. The opening is a noun phrase rather than a clean verb+resource statement, which keeps it just short of ideal.

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 trigger point, and 'Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method' clarifies coverage. It hints at the relationship with app-specific tools ('when Cotlet has them') but never states a when-not or an explicit alternative to skip this tool.

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