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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description need not restate safety; instead it adds real context the annotations don't carry — 'Free, no browser session' tells the agent this costs nothing and consumes no browser state, and the enumerated guide contents set expectations about the response. It does not describe response size or whether guidance is workspace-specific, but the incremental value over annotations is solid.

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 is front-loaded in the opening clause and the call-timing instruction follows early; most sentences carry weight. The trailing Joblogic action list reads as an appended catalog detail and the first sentence is a long run-on, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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 does the necessary work of previewing return contents, and it supplies the call-timing rule and app-scope caveat. For a two-parameter, zero-required, side-effect-free guide tool this is close to complete; only absence of any note on how app-specific vs. generic guidance is selected for non-catalog apps leaves a small gap.

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% (app name/slug with default Joblogic, task in the user's words), so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining that arbitrary web apps are acceptable and by listing the concrete Joblogic actions covered ('Log job, Schedule engineer, Create quote, List unpaid invoices, List jobs'), which clarifies what to pass for `task`.

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 verb+resource: it returns guidance on 'how to work in an app' through Cotlet's Cloud Browser tools, and enumerates exactly what the guide contains (browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, dedicated tools). This is clearly distinguishable from the cotlet_browser_* action tools and from cotlet_apps, which an agent can tell apart without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call it before the first browser step in an app,' and states coverage boundaries ('works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method'). It does not name alternatives, e.g. pointing to cotlet_apps for discovering a valid app name/slug or to joblogic_* tools for direct execution, so the exclusion side is left implicit.

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