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 does add genuinely non-obvious behavior with "Free, no browser session" — telling the agent this costs nothing and does not open/consume a session. Beyond that it gives no indication of response size or whether the guide is cached/stable.

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 an overlong list of everything the guide contains, delaying the actual instruction to call it. The key directive ("Call it before the first browser step") and the cost note appear only after that block. The Exact Online action list is useful but reads as promotional tail rather than routing information.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description does the work of explaining what comes back and of covering uncatalogued apps. What an agent still cannot tell is how much content to expect or what to do if the guide is empty for a given app.

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 parameters are already documented, including the Exact Online default. The description reinforces the app scope by enumerating Exact Online actions, but adds no format or fallback detail for the task parameter beyond the schema's wording.

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 states a concrete purpose: it returns a per-app guide (browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and any dedicated app tools). It also names its position relative to the browser_* siblings by being the pre-step briefing rather than an action. It is somewhat run-on and never gives a single crisp 'this retrieves instructions' sentence, which keeps it below 5.

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 ordering rule, and "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" pre-empts the common failure of assuming only catalogued apps are supported. It stops short of naming a when-not case or explicitly pointing at cotlet_apps / the exact_online_* tools as follow-ups.

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