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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the call is free and opens no browser session. It also discloses that unsupported apps fall back to a generic method, which is a real behavioral trait. Return shape is enumerated but not fully specified, so it stops short of a 5.

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 opening sentence is a long comma-chained list of deliverables that is dense on first read, and the trigger sentence is buried in the middle rather than front-loaded. Nothing is strictly redundant, but the structure could be tightened so the "call before first browser step" rule leads.

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 does the necessary work by enumerating what comes back: browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and app-specific tools. Combined with the free/no-session disclosure, an agent has enough to decide to call it and what to expect, though the shape of the returned guidance is still prose-level.

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% and both parameters carry descriptions including the Gorgias default, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the app argument determines the browser and sign-in link used for the workspace, but it does not clarify what an unrecognized app value yields or how detailed the task string should be.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns guidance on how to operate an app in the Cloud Browser, enumerating what the answer contains (browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens, menus, actions, notes, dedicated tools). This clearly separates it from the cotlet_browser_* siblings that actually perform clicks. It is a knowledge/guide tool rather than an actor, which an agent can infer without opening the schema.

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 one explicit trigger, and "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" sets expectations for uncatalogued apps. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. mid-task re-checks, or app with dedicated tools already known), but the when-to-use context is clear.

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