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 bar is lower; the description still adds real value by stating "Free, no browser session," which tells the agent there is no cost or session side effect to weigh. It also discloses the kind of content returned (sign-in link, method, per-app dedicated tools), which goes beyond the safety profile. It does not say whether the guide is cached/fresh per call or how large the response is.

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 trigger instruction is front-loaded and every clause in the enumeration maps to real returned content rather than filler. The single long sentence with a seven-item list is dense and slightly harder to scan than it needs to be, but nothing is truly redundant.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns and does so by enumerating the guide's sections, plus it clarifies cost/session behavior and the scope for uncatalogued apps. For a two-optional-parameter, read-only guidance tool, an agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to interpret the result.

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 parameters are already documented, including the Freshsales default for "app" and "in their words" for "task" — baseline 3 applies. The description adds only a light hint that the guide is tailored to the workspace's browser and the app's own tools, without explaining how a slug vs. a plain name is resolved or what happens when neither parameter is supplied.

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 specific resource and enumerates what the guide covers: browser choice and sign-in link, step-by-step method, the app's screens/menus/actions, notes, and the app's dedicated tools. That makes the tool distinguishable from the raw cotlet_browser_* siblings, which perform steps rather than explain them. It never names cotlet_apps as the catalog-listing sibling, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 clear trigger point in the workflow, and "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" defines the coverage boundary. What's missing is explicit routing to alternatives — e.g., use cotlet_apps to discover a slug, or skip this guide on later steps once the method is known.

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