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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the bar is low, yet the description still adds useful behavior: "Free, no browser session" tells the agent this call has no cost or browser-state side effect. It also enumerates the kinds of content returned, which is real value beyond the structured fields.

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 purpose and returned contents are front-loaded, and the trigger instruction and coverage note follow in short sentences with no filler. The opening sentence is a dense clause list that takes a second read, but every element carries information.

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 work of telling the agent what comes back by enumerating the guide's sections. It stops short of stating the response format or length, which matters slightly for an agent deciding how much of the output to consume.

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 (app, task) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only obliquely touches the app parameter ("works for any web app") and says nothing about how the task string shapes the returned guidance, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 concrete resource and what it returns: browser choice for the workspace, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and app-specific tools. It also explicitly separates itself from the browser_* siblings by being the pre-step guide rather than an action, and notes the fallback behavior for apps outside Cotlet's catalog.

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" is a precise trigger condition, and the description covers the outside-catalog case ("gets the general method"). It does not explicitly say whether to re-call for a second app in the same session or name cotlet_apps as the alternative for catalog lookup, so a small routing gap remains.

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