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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, but the description adds genuinely new operational facts: it is free and opens no browser session (important given every sibling tool does), and out-of-catalog apps degrade to a general method rather than failing. It also enumerates the content of the returned guide in place of a missing output schema. Missing only details like how the app name is resolved or what happens on an unknown slug.

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 core call-to-action (use it before the first browser step) and the benefit (free, no session) are front-loaded, and every clause maps to real content the tool returns. The middle enumeration is dense and slightly list-like in prose form, but nothing is 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?

For a two-optional-parameter, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the scope (any web app plus the fallback), the cost, and the shape of the returned guidance. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents both `app` (name or Cotlet slug, default GoHighLevel) and `task`. The prose adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, such as how task wording affects the returned method, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 is specific about what it returns: which browser to use for the workspace, the sign-in link, the step-by-step method, the app's screens/menus/actions, notes, and app-specific tooling. That clearly separates it from the sibling cotlet_browser_* action tools, which perform steps rather than explain them. It stops short of naming a sibling (e.g. cotlet_apps for listing catalogs), so it lands just under a 5.

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 condition, and "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" sets expectations for out-of-catalog cases. No exclusion or named alternative is given, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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