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 bar is lower. The description still adds genuine context beyond them: 'Free, no browser session' tells the agent this call costs nothing and does not consume a browser slot, which matters for planning. It also discloses the shape of the returned guidance, though it does not describe length or format of the response.

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 content is relevant but packed into a single sprawling sentence with a long comma-separated enumeration, and the key usage instruction ('Call it before the first browser step') is buried mid-paragraph rather than front-loaded. Nothing is redundant, but splitting the payload list and the call-timing rule into separate sentences would make it faster to scan.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the categories of guidance returned (browser choice, sign-in link, method, screens, menus, actions, notes, dedicated tools). Cost and session behavior are also covered. Only the volume/format of the returned guide is left unstated, which is minor for a documentation-style tool.

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% and both parameters carry their own descriptions, including the 'Jotform' default, so the schema does the heavy lifting and a 3 baseline applies. The description adds only loose framing — 'in an app' and the task's purpose — without clarifying slug vs. display name format or how the task argument changes the returned method. Marginal value beyond 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 uses a specific verb and resource — it returns a how-to method for working in a named app through Cotlet's Cloud Browser — and enumerates the payload (browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, dedicated tools). It is distinguishable from the cotlet_browser_* siblings, which perform actions rather than return guidance. The purpose sentence is a dense run-on rather than a crisp one-liner, which keeps it from 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?

Offers explicit timing guidance: 'Call it before the first browser step in an app,' which tells the agent exactly where this fits in a sequence ahead of cotlet_browser_open/cotlet_browser_click. It also scopes coverage ('Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method'). It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling alternatives it replaces, so a 4 rather than 5.

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