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

The annotations already declare a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that with "Free, no browser session," which tells the agent there is no cost and no side effect on the Cloud Browser state — a genuinely useful detail not present in the structured fields.

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 is front-loaded, but the opening sentence is a long run-on enumeration of return contents, and the trailing JobSheet action list ("Create job sheet, Create quote, Create invoice...") is bulky and reads like catalog data that could mislead an agent into thinking this tool performs those actions. It is dense rather than economical.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating what the guide returns (browser choice, sign-in link, method, screens, notes, dedicated tools). Together with the cost/session note and the pre-first-step timing, an agent has enough to decide to call it correctly; only the interaction with the jobsheet_* action tools is unaddressed.

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 the schema already documents both `app` and `task`, including the JobSheet default and the "in their words" phrasing. The description adds the notion of a Cotlet catalog with a general-method fallback for uncatalogued apps, but that is behavioral context rather than parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specifies the resource precisely: a pre-flight guide returning which browser to use, the sign-in link, a step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and any dedicated Cotlet tools for that app. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from the cotlet_browser_* action tools, which perform steps rather than explain them. The verb is only implied ("Call it before the first browser step"), which keeps it slightly short of a 5.

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 an explicit trigger point, and "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" sets the scope of applicability. It does not explicitly say to prefer the jobsheet_* dedicated tools for actual JobSheet actions once the guide has been read, so the boundary with those siblings is left to inference.

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