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 useful operational context beyond them: 'Free, no browser session' tells the agent this costs nothing and consumes no browser state, and the content enumeration previews the response shape in the absence of an output schema.

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 prerequisite instruction is front-loaded and the payload is dense rather than padded, but the opening sentence is a long comma-chained list of deliverables that is harder to scan than a short bulleted clause would be. Nothing is wasted, though — every clause 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 compensates well by enumerating what comes back and stating the cost and session behavior. What remains unstated is the response format and size (structured text vs. prose, how long), which matters for a documentation-returning tool the agent must then act on.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, and the baseline would be 3. The description earns an extra point by explaining the app parameter's tolerance: 'Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method,' which tells the agent not to pre-validate the app name. The task parameter is not elaborated beyond its schema text.

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?

States a specific resource and enumerates exactly what the guide returns — workspace browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and dedicated tools. That enumeration clearly separates it from the cotlet_browser_* action siblings, which perform steps rather than explain them.

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 rule: 'Call it before the first browser step in an app,' which both triggers the call and implies it is a one-time prerequisite rather than a per-step tool. It also covers the negative/edge case — an app outside Cotlet's catalog still gets the general method — so the agent knows the call is still worth making.

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