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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: "Free, no browser session" tells the agent this is a catalogue lookup that does not spin up or bill a Cloud Browser session, and it discloses the shape of what comes back.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary instruction and the trigger sentence early. It is one long comma-spliced list sentence followed by three short fragments, which is dense but each clause carries information; minor tightening would help without losing content.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the returned guide's contents. For a zero-required-param, read-only lookup, an agent has everything it needs to decide to call it and what to expect back.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by stating that any web app is accepted and that non-catalogue apps still return the general method rather than an error — real added meaning for the `app` parameter's tolerance. It adds nothing for `task` beyond what the schema says.

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 pre-flight guide retrieval: it enumerates the payload (which browser to use for the workspace, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, dedicated tools). It implicitly separates itself from the browser_* siblings by positioning itself as the thing to call before them, though it never names a sibling tool 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, and "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" sets expectations for off-catalog cases. Missing is an explicit when-not (e.g. don't re-call on every step) or a pointer to cotlet_apps for discovering app names.

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