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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: "Free, no browser session" tells the agent no Cloud Browser session is consumed, and the content list tells the agent what the response will contain. It does not discuss the freshness of the guidance or whether the sign-in link is scoped to the calling user.

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 key instruction (call before the first browser step) is placed mid-description behind a long comma-run enumeration of guide contents. It is information-dense but reads as one sprawling paragraph, so the action trigger should be front-loaded.

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-param, read-only knowledge tool with no output schema, the description covers what the guide returns and when to fetch it. Remaining unknowns (output size, whether the guide is static or workspace-dependent) are minor but not fully closed.

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%, including the default of Fortnox, so the schema carries the parameter load. The description nonetheless adds meaning beyond the schema: any app name is acceptable (uncatalogued apps fall back to the general method), and the listed Fortnox actions show what a known-app answer can contain.

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 a specific resource (a per-app usage guide) and enumerates the payload: which browser to use, the sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and any dedicated Cotlet tools. It implicitly separates itself from the cotlet_browser_* action tools by framing the guide as preparation, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 a concrete trigger point, and "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" clarifies coverage limits. There is no explicit when-not-to-call guidance or named alternative (e.g., cotlet_apps for discovering apps), which keeps it below a 5.

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