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

The readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations already declare the safety profile, so the description earns credit for what they cannot say: "Free, no browser session" tells the agent this costs nothing and consumes no browser session, which materially affects call ordering. It also discloses that coverage is catalog-dependent (e-conomic actions are enumerated; unknown apps fall back to the general method), which is genuine behavioral context. Return shape is not described, but no output schema exists and the content list partly covers it.

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 the call trigger are front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by scope and coverage caveats. The middle sentence is a long enumerated list, but every item describes a distinct payload element, so nothing is filler.

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 guidance/knowledge tool with two optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what to call it for, when to call it, what it returns, and its limits for uncatalogued apps. The only gap is that it never says whether the guidance is app-scoped per call or whether repeated calls for the same app are wasteful, which matters given the idempotent hint.

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%, so both the app and task parameters are already documented in the schema, including the e-conomic default. The description adds only indirect meaning: naming e-conomic actions signals that the app value changes the returned content, and 'in their words' echoes the task parameter's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 goes well beyond the title, spelling out that this retrieves operating guidance for a web app: which browser to use, the sign-in link, the step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and any dedicated app tools. That distinguishes it from the raw browser_* siblings, which perform actions rather than explain them. It is slightly diffuse because it enumerates contents rather than stating one crisp verb, but an agent can still tell what it gets back.

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" is an explicit, actionable trigger, and "works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" sets expectations for uncovered apps. It does not explicitly contrast against cotlet_apps or the e_conomic_* dedicated tools, but the trigger condition is clear enough that guidance is not left to inference.

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