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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false, so the description's key contribution is that the call is free and opens no browser session — a genuinely useful cost/side-effect disclosure that annotations do not convey. It also enumerates the concrete Markate actions covered, which tells the agent what guidance it will actually get back.

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 sits in the middle of a very long opening sentence, but the trigger sentence and the Markate action list follow immediately and are front-loaded. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; only the trailing action enumeration feels inventory-like rather than essential.

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, zero-required-parameter guidance tool with no output schema, the description supplies what the agent needs: the trigger timing, the scope, the cost/session profile, and an example of covered actions. The only gap is that it does not sketch the shape of the returned guidance, which is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 already documented. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what happens when the app is not in the catalog (general method is returned), which an agent cannot infer from the 'app' string parameter alone.

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 verb and resource: fetch the how-to for working in an app inside the user's Cloud Browser, covering which browser to use, the sign-in link, the step-by-step method, screens, menus, actions, notes, and dedicated tools. That clearly separates it from cotlet_apps (catalog listing) and the cotlet_browser_* action tools.

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 fallback rule ('one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method'), plus a note that it also points to app-specific tools when available. It stops short of naming the alternative for a lookup-only task, so the routing is good but not complete.

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