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 lower, and the description still contributes real behavior: "Free, no browser session" tells the agent this costs nothing and does not open or consume a browser session, which is decision-relevant when juggling browser state. It stops short of describing the return shape or size of the returned guidance.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then three short sentences carrying the usage trigger, generality, and cost. The opening sentence is a dense comma-spliced list that takes effort to parse, but no sentence is wasted.

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 return-value burden and does so by enumerating what the guide contains (sign-in link, method, screens, menus, actions, notes, dedicated tools). For a two-optional-parameter read-only lookup tool this is nearly complete; only the format of the returned guidance is unstated.

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% with both parameters documented, including a default for `app`, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description gestures at the `app` parameter ("which browser to use for this workspace", "the app's dedicated tools") but adds no meaning about the optional `task` parameter or how it 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 (a per-app operating guide for the Cloud Browser) and enumerates its contents: browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and app-specific tools. It implicitly separates itself from the cotlet_browser_* siblings by positioning itself as the pre-step briefing rather than the action, though it never names those siblings.

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 an explicit timing trigger, and "works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" pre-empts the obvious fallback question. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause (e.g., re-calling after the guide is already in context), but the annotation idempotentHint and the 'first step' wording cover most of that.

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