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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds cost and side-effect context beyond that: "Free, no browser session" tells the agent this call does not consume a browser or credits, which materially affects when it is cheap to call. The fallback behavior for out-of-catalog apps is also disclosed.

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 core instruction to call it before the first browser step appears early, followed by scope and cost notes. The enumerated contents and the tail list of JobAdder actions are dense but each item carries selection value for matching the agent's task. Slightly list-heavy rather than wasteful.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does: browser choice for the workspace, sign-in link, step-by-step method, app screens/menus/actions, notes, and dedicated tools. With only two optional parameters and read-only annotations, this covers what an agent needs to decide to call it.

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%, with both parameters documented (app name or Cotlet slug with a JobAdder default, and task in the user's words), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add format or interpretation guidance beyond the schema, such as how specific the task description should be for the guide to be tailored.

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 purpose: retrieving a how-to guide for working in a web app via Cotlet's browser tools, including workspace browser choice, sign-in link, method, screens/menus/actions, and the app's dedicated tools. It is clearly a documentation/orientation tool, distinct from the cotlet_browser_* action tools and the jobadder_* action tools. It stops short of a single crisp verb+object sentence, listing contents instead, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 states coverage boundaries — works for any web app, and non-catalog apps get the general method — which tells the agent it is not limited to JobAdder. No explicit when-not-to-use or statement of what to do instead if the guide is unhelpful, so it falls short of a 5.

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