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 genuinely new behavior context: it costs nothing and does not open a browser session, and it enumerates what comes back, which matters for planning a sequence. It doesn't say whether results are cached or stale, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the call-timing constraint follows. The middle is a long comma-chained enumeration of returned content that is dense but earns its place by telling the agent what to expect; a bulleted or shorter form would read better.

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, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns and it does so reasonably well across browser choice, sign-in, method, UI map, and notes. It stops short of describing output structure or size, which an agent sequencing browser steps would benefit from, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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% and both parameters are documented there (including the Inoreader default), so the baseline applies. The description contributes only indirectly — it clarifies that the app may be outside Cotlet's catalog and still get a general method, and that the workspace determines which browser to use — but says nothing about how 'task' shapes the returned guidance.

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 and action — a per-app guidance document covering browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and app-specific tools — invoked before clicking in the Cloud Browser. An agent can immediately distinguish it from cotlet_apps (catalog listing) and the cotlet_browser_* action tools.

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: 'Call it before the first browser step in an app,' which is a concrete precondition. It also clarifies scope ('Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method') but never names a sibling tool or states when this call can be skipped entirely, so it stops short of full 5-level routing guidance.

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