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 two pieces of context beyond the schema: the call is free and opens no browser session, which matters for cost/side-effect reasoning before a user starts a browsing workflow.

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 call-to-action and trigger condition are front-loaded and the total length is short. The opening sentence is a long colon-list that packs many items together, which is dense but still economical for the amount of scope it covers.

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 describing returns, and it does so by enumerating browser/sign-in info, method steps, UI structure, notes, and dedicated tools. Combined with the explicit trigger timing and the free/no-session note, an agent has everything needed to decide to call it before its first browser step.

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 both `app` (name or slug, default Homerun) and `task` (user's own words) documented directly in the schema. The description does not clarify how `task` changes the returned guidance, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured fields; 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 names a specific resource (guidance for operating an app in the Cloud Browser) and enumerates what the guidance contains: browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, and app-specific tools. It is distinguishable from the cotlet_browser_* siblings, which perform actions rather than explain them, though the dense colon-list makes the core purpose slightly harder to extract at a glance.

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 a clear trigger condition, implicitly scoping it to the start of a task rather than every step. "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" sets expectations for unsupported apps, but no explicit when-not-to-use or fallback alternative is named.

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