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 behavioral context beyond that: the call is free, consumes no browser session, and degrades gracefully to a general method for apps outside the catalog. Since there is no output schema, it also usefully enumerates what the guide contains, though it could say more about format (text vs structured).

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the call-timing rule, then scope and cost, which is the right order for an agent scanning quickly. The middle enumeration of guide contents is dense and list-heavy but each item is informative. Minor tightening of that run-on clause would make it a 5.

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?

For a two-parameter, zero-required read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it returns, when to call it, what it costs, and how it behaves for unknown apps. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it before a browser session starts.

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%, with both 'app' (including the Kommo default) and 'task' documented in the schema. The description backgrounds the app concept ('in an app', 'any web app', 'outside Cotlet's catalog') but never explains what the 'task' parameter does to the returned guidance. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 the resource clearly: a guide returning 'which browser to use for this workspace and the sign-in link, the method step by step, the app's screens, menus and actions, notes, and the app's dedicated tools'. It also distinguishes itself from the browser_* siblings by framing itself as the thing to consult before using them. It stops short of a single crisp verb (it is a 'guide/instructions' resource rather than an action), which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 condition, and 'Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method' sets scope. 'Free, no browser session' tells the agent there is no cost to calling it liberally. It does not explicitly name which sibling alternatives exist (e.g. cotlet_apps for listing), so it is not quite a 5.

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