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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond them: 'Free, no browser session' tells the agent there is no cost or live session side effect, and it enumerates what the response contains (sign-in link, method, screens, app-specific tools). It does not describe response size or format constraints, but the key behavioral traits are added.

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 is front-loaded, but the first sentence is a long colon-delimited list that is dense and slightly hard to parse. The remaining sentences ('Call it before...', 'Works for any web app...', 'Free, no browser session.') are efficient and earn their place, while the enumerated content list overlaps with the tool title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must signal what comes back — and it does, listing the browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, app screens/actions, and dedicated tools. Along with the explicit pre-call timing and the free/no-session note, an agent has enough to call this correctly before starting browser automation.

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 both 'app' (name or Cotlet slug, default Formstack) and 'task' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about how to phrase or scope these parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 makes clear this is a guidance/playbook retrieval tool that returns which browser to use, a sign-in link, a step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and any dedicated app tools. It implicitly separates itself from the cotlet_browser_* siblings by being the 'read this first' knowledge source. The opening clause is convoluted ('How to work in an app by clicking in the user's Cloud Browser with Cotlet's browser tools'), so the specific verb (returns guidance) is inferred rather than stated.

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' covers the fallback case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to skip it or use cotlet_apps instead), but the ordering guidance against the browser siblings is clear enough to act on.

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