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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful non-schema context: the call is free and opens no browser session, and it describes the kind of information returned (browser selection, sign-in link, method, screens, menus, actions, notes, dedicated tools).

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 definition is front-loaded with the guide's contents, then follows with clear usage, scope, and cost sentences. The first sentence is long and list-heavy but every clause adds relevant information, and there is no redundant filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the returned guide's components sufficiently for an agent to know what to expect. It also covers scope and cost. Minor gaps remain, such as the return format, but these are not essential for a read-only guide retrieval tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the optional 'app' and 'task' parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for these parameters; it focuses on the guide content instead.

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 specifies the tool's resource and scope precisely: it returns a guide for working in an app, including which browser to use, sign-in links, step-by-step method, screens, menus, actions, notes, and dedicated tools. It distinguishes itself from browser action siblings by telling the agent to call it before the first browser step, though it does not explicitly name cotlet_apps as the alternative for discovering apps.

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?

It gives explicit timing ('Call it before the first browser step in an app') and scope ('Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method'). It does not list when-not-to-use cases or compare against specific sibling tools, but the primary usage condition is clear.

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