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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-annotated behavior: the call is 'Free, no browser session', meaning no Cloud Browser resources are consumed and no navigation state changes. It does not describe the shape of the returned guidance (structured vs. prose), which is the remaining gap.

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?

Purpose and content list come first, the imperative call trigger follows, and the scope/cost caveats close. The middle sentence is a dense enumeration but every element listed is a distinct piece of returned guidance an agent would care about, so nothing is padding.

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 two-optional-parameter guidance tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers the trigger, the scope, the cost, and effectively summarizes the return payload. The only omission is any sense of output format or size, which matters little for a read-only lookup.

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, including a default ('Findymail') for app and a plain-language definition for task. The description adds no additional meaning about how app slug vs. display name resolves, or how task alters the returned guidance, so it sits at the baseline.

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 (app-specific guidance for driving a web app through Cotlet's browser tools) and enumerates the contents: browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and dedicated tools. It distinguishes itself from the browser_* siblings by positioning itself as the pre-flight guide rather than a browser action. The opening is a noun phrase rather than a verb about what is retrieved, which slightly softens the specificity.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call it before the first browser step in an app.' It also states coverage ('Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method'), which tells the agent it need not pre-check catalog membership. It does not explicitly contrast with cotlet_apps or say whether repeated calls per app are wasteful, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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