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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely new context beyond them: "Free, no browser session," which tells the agent this call costs nothing and does not open or consume a browser. It says nothing about output size, freshness, or whether results are cached per app.

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 first sentence is long and list-heavy but front-loads the purpose, and the three short follow-ups (when to call, scope, cost) each carry distinct information. Slightly dense, with no wasted sentences.

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 usefully substitutes by enumerating the guide's contents, and it closes the cost/session question an agent would otherwise guess at. Given only two optional string params and rich read-only annotations, this is close to sufficient; only the practicalities of repeat calls within one app are unaddressed.

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%, so both `app` (name or Cotlet slug, default eDesk) and `task` are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only indirect meaning, hinting that apps outside the catalog still resolve to a general method, but it never explains what `task` changes about 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 names the resource (a per-app working guide for the Cloud Browser) and enumerates its contents: browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and dedicated tools. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the cotlet_browser_* siblings by saying it is called before the first browser step, though it never names a sibling outright.

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, and "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" sets scope for uncatalogued apps. It stops short of saying when not to call it (e.g., on repeat steps within the same app), which is the only real gap.

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