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 safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: "Free, no browser session" tells the agent this call is side-effect-free and cheap, which matters when deciding whether to consult it before every app task. It could go further on whether the returned guidance is cached or versioned.

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 action is front-loaded, but the first sentence is a long run-on list of contents that reads as a grab-bag rather than a structured summary. The two follow-up sentences are efficient and each earns its place. Trimming or breaking the list would improve scannability.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does: recommended browser, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens, menus, actions, notes, and pointers to dedicated tools. For a read-only advisory tool with two optional parameters, that is close to complete; only the fallback behavior when `app` is absent is left implicit.

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 both `app` and `task` are already documented, including the default of Google Discover. The description mentions browser choice per workspace and the general-method fallback, but adds no guidance on how to phrase `task` or what happens when `app` is omitted. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 the resource (a guide for working in a web app via Cotlet's browser tools) and enumerates what it contains: browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and dedicated tools. It is clearly distinguishable from the browser action siblings, which perform operations rather than explain them. The phrasing is somewhat run-on, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 point in the workflow, and "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" sets expectations for unlisted apps. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or say what to do if the guide was already consulted, keeping it short of a 5.

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