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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: 'Free, no browser session' tells the agent there is no cost and no live browser state involved. It does not describe the shape or length of the returned guidance, so the added value is real but limited.

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 instruction ('Call it before the first browser step in an app') is front-loaded right after the content summary, and the single-sentence opening is dense but coherent. The trailing enumeration of Help Scout actions is long and arguably belongs to the sibling action tools, though it does help an agent confirm coverage.

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 carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does: browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and app-dedicated tools. Together with the free/no-session note, an agent has enough to decide to call it and to know what to expect. It stops short of 5 because nothing is said about the response format or whether results are cached per app.

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% with only 2 optional parameters, so the schema already explains that 'app' accepts a name or Cotlet slug (default Help Scout) and 'task' is the user's request in their own words. The description does not add routing or formatting guidance for either parameter beyond implying that the app name selects the catalog entry. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a clear verb-and-resource pair: it returns instructions for working in a web app through the Cloud Browser, and it itemizes what the returned guidance contains (which browser and sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, app-specific tools). That distinguishes it from the cotlet_browser_* siblings, which perform actions rather than explain them. It falls short of 5 only because the leading phrase 'How to work in an app' is a bit abstract until the later clauses clarify that this is a lookup/guide call.

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?

Explicit timing guidance is given: 'Call it before the first browser step in an app.' It also sets expectations for edge cases ('Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method'). There is no explicit statement of when-not to call it or which sibling to prefer for raw page reads, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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