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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds two facts the annotations do not convey: it is 'Free' and opens 'no browser session', which matters for a browser-automation product where sessions are a scarce resource. It also discloses the shape of the returned guidance. No return format or length/caching behavior beyond that.

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 ('Call it before the first browser step in an app') is present but buried mid-paragraph after a long comma-chained list of return contents. The Klean CRM action enumeration at the end is useful but reads as appended catalog rather than structured guidance; the single sprawling sentence hurts scannability.

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 must describe what comes back, and it does: browser choice, sign-in link, method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and dedicated tools. Combined with the explicit call-timing and the free/no-session note, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the fallback behavior for unknown apps is left implicit.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the 'Default: Klean CRM' behavior, so the schema carries the load. The description's only added semantic is the enumeration of Klean CRM actions, which hints at what `task` should express but never says so explicitly.

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 states a specific resource — guidance for operating an app through Cotlet's browser tools — and enumerates what the guidance contains (which browser, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens, menus, actions, notes, dedicated tools). It is distinguishable from the cotlet_browser_* primitives, which perform actions rather than explain them. The opening phrasing 'How to work in an app by clicking...' is slightly roundabout but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear trigger: 'Call it before the first browser step in an app.' Also scopes coverage: 'Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method.' It stops short of saying when to skip it or to prefer the klean_crm_* dedicated tools once known, so the routing logic is not fully closed.

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