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 new operational context: it is free and consumes no browser session, which matters because every sibling tool does open a session. It stops short of describing response shape or length, but the key behavioral fact is 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 is buried at the end of a long first sentence, and the middle becomes a comma-laden inventory ("the app's screens, menus and actions, notes, and the app's dedicated tools"). The timing instruction should be front-loaded rather than third in the sequence.

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 reasonably enumerates what the guide returns (browser choice, sign-in link, method, UI map, notes, dedicated tools) and covers both catalog and off-catalog apps. For a two-optional-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, little is missing.

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%, with both `app` and `task` documented including a default, so the description does not need to restate them. It implies `app` may accept a Cotlet slug or a name and that arbitrary apps are accepted, but that meaning is already in 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 the resource precisely (a how-to guide for operating a specific web app inside the Cloud Browser) and lists the contents: which browser, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, and the app's dedicated tools. It is distinguishable from the granular cotlet_browser_* siblings, though the boundary with cotlet_apps (the catalog) is never stated explicitly.

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 "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" explains fallback behavior. The gap is that it never names cotlet_apps or explains which of the two to consult first for discovery versus execution.

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