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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new facts: it is free and consumes no browser session, and it degrades to a general method for apps outside the catalog. It does not describe the shape or length of the returned guidance, but the cost/session disclosure is the operationally important detail here.

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 first clause, and the closing Kahunas action list is useful routing information rather than filler. The middle enumeration ("the method step by step, the app's screens, menus and actions, notes") is dense and list-like, making the sentence longer than strictly needed.

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 only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the guide's sections. What remains unstated is whether the response is prose, structured steps, or links, which slightly matters for planning the next browser call.

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 baseline is 3; both `app` (with a default of Kahunas) and `task` are already documented in the schema. The description only loosely gestures at the `app` parameter via "which browser to use for this workspace" and adds no new meaning to `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 resource (a how-to guide for working in a web app via the Cloud Browser) and enumerates what it contains: browser choice for the workspace, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and app-specific tools. It is clearly distinguishable from the cotlet_browser_* action siblings, which perform clicks rather than return guidance.

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 scope expectations. It stops short of naming the kahunas_* tools as a substitute path for supported actions, so the agent must infer when to prefer a dedicated tool over browser steps.

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