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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — 'Free, no browser session' — telling the agent this call consumes no browser/session resources. It does not describe the shape or length of the returned guidance, but with no output schema that is a modest gap rather than a serious one.

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?

All content is packed into one long run-on sentence with a seven-item list, which makes it harder to scan than it needs to be. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler, but splitting the trigger ('Call it before the first browser step') into its own sentence would improve structure without losing anything.

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 compensates by enumerating what the guide contains, so an agent knows what it will get back. For a two-parameter, zero-required, read-only guidance tool the definition covers purpose, trigger, scope, and cost; only the return format granularity is unstated.

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 both parameters ('app' with its Kickserv default and 'task') are already documented. The description mentions sign-in links, methods, and dedicated tools, but those are outputs, not clarifications of the 'app' or 'task' inputs; it adds no meaning beyond the schema. 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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns: which browser to use for the workspace, the sign-in link, the step-by-step method, the app's screens/menus/actions, notes, and any app-dedicated tools. This clearly separates it from the cotlet_browser_* action tools, though the opening 'How to work in an app' reads as a headline rather than stating the verb 'returns/gets 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?

It gives an explicit trigger — 'Call it before the first browser step in an app' — and a scope statement: 'Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method.' It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling (e.g., cotlet_apps for catalog listing), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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