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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it is free, does not open a browser session, works across any web app, and lists the kinds of guidance it returns. It does not cover auth requirements, error cases, or rate limits, but those are secondary for a read-only guide.

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 description is front-loaded with purpose and usage timing, and every sentence contributes useful information. The opening sentence is long and list-heavy, but it remains readable and avoids filler.

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 read-only guide tool with no output schema and complete schema coverage, the description supplies all the context an agent needs: purpose, when to call it, applicability to any web app, cost/session behavior, and the type of content returned. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both optional parameters, including defaults and max lengths. The description does not add parameter-level syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter 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 clearly states that this tool returns a guide for working in an app through the Cloud Browser, including browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, app screens/menus/actions, notes, and dedicated tools. It distinguishes itself from the browser action siblings by directing the agent to call it before the first browser step in an app.

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 explicit timing guidance: "Call it before the first browser step in an app," and clarifies that it works for any web app, with a general method for apps outside Cotlet's catalog. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as cotlet_apps for discovery, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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