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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds real value beyond that with 'Free, no browser session' — a cost/side-effect signal the agent cannot infer from annotations — and enumerates what the guide returns. It does not say anything about latency or how the guidance relates to a subsequent browser session's lifetime.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the trigger condition and the scope caveat. The first sentence is a long comma-chained enumeration of return contents, which costs some readability, but nothing is padding.

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 does so by listing browser choice, sign-in link, method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and dedicated tools. For a zero-required-parameter read-only guide this is nearly complete; only the interaction between 'task' and the returned guidance is left vague.

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%, so both parameters are already documented; the baseline is 3. The description implies that 'task' shapes the returned method ('What the user wants done'), but adds no detail on how the task changes output, and it omits the schema's notable default (Jane App) for 'app'.

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 states a specific resource and outcome: a guide covering which Cloud Browser to use, the sign-in link, the step-by-step method, and the app's screens/menus/actions. It implicitly separates itself from the cotlet_browser_* action tools by being the preparatory briefing, though it never names a sibling directly.

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.' It also clarifies coverage ('Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method'), so an agent knows it is never a dead end. No explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g., cotlet_apps for discovery) is given.

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