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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely new facts — the call is free and consumes no browser session — plus graceful degradation for unrecognized apps. It stops short of describing the response shape or how large the returned guide is.

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 purpose and the 'call it before the first browser step' instruction are front-loaded, which is good. However, the opening sentence is a long comma-chained inventory of guide contents that is harder to scan than a short lead plus bullet-style listing, and the catalog caveat could be tightened.

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?

For a read-only, two-optional-parameter reference tool with no output schema, the description gives enough: what it returns, when to call it, that it costs nothing, and the fallback when the app is unknown. Only the shape/size of the returned guide and the interaction between 'app' and 'task' are left 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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the Jobber default for 'app' and the free-text nature of 'task'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies; notably it never mentions that supplying 'task' tailors the guide, which the agent would have to infer from the schema.

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 how-to guide for working in a given web app) and enumerates what it returns: which browser to use, the 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 being the pre-step reference rather than an action, though it never names a sibling outright.

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 a clear trigger point, and the note that any web app outside Cotlet's catalog still gets the general method sets expectations for coverage. It does not name cotlet_apps as the way to discover valid app names, nor state when skipping it is acceptable.

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