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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value annotations don't: it is free, requires no browser session, and degrades to a general method for apps outside the catalog. It does not describe the return payload's shape or whether the guide can be stale, so with annotations carrying the safety burden a moderate score is right.

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 core purpose, and the 'Call it before the first browser step' directive appears early rather than buried. The trailing sentence enumerating Gladly actions is long and quasi-catalog-like, and the opening clause is slightly convoluted, but the whole text remains dense and earns its space.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter guide tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, call timing, scope, cost/session implications, and catalog coverage. The remaining gap is what to do with the returned guide (presumably feed it into the browser_* tools) and how large it may be, but overall it is well matched to the tool's complexity.

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%: both app and task are documented in the schema, including the app parameter's 'Default: Gladly' behavior. The description contributes mildly by implying that app is the workspace's app and that unknown apps fall back to the general method. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose — retrieve guidance on how to operate an app with Cotlet's browser tools — and enumerates the guide's contents (browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, dedicated tools). This distinguishes it from the browser_* execution siblings, which perform single browser steps rather than planning. The opening phrase echoes the title, but the following enumeration supplies real 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?

'Call it before the first browser step in an app' is an explicit timing trigger, and 'Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method' defines scope and the fallback path. It stops short of a 5 because it names no concrete alternative tools (e.g., cotlet_apps for listing apps or the browser_* tools for execution) and gives no when-not-to-use condition.

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