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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: "Free, no browser session" tells the agent this costs no quota and opens nothing, which materially affects when it is safe to call.

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 action and the pre-browser-step trigger are front-loaded, and the closing mHelpDesk action list is concrete. The opening sentence is an overlong colon-and-comma chain that could be split, but little is genuinely wasted.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so by enumerating the sections of the guide. Only the mHelpDesk catalog list feels tacked on rather than integrated into how an agent should use the result.

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` (name or Cotlet slug, default mHelpDesk) and `task` (user's own words) fully documented. The description adds no further meaning about how these parameters shape the returned guidance, so the 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 names a specific resource and verb: a guide for working in an app through Cotlet's Cloud Browser tools, enumerating exactly what it returns (browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens, menus, actions, notes, dedicated tools). An agent can distinguish it from the cotlet_browser_* action tools without opening a schema.

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 point, and "works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" sets scope. It stops short of stating whether the mHelpDesk dedicated tools (create_lead, schedule_job, etc.) should be preferred over the guide's click-through method, which is the main alternative an agent would weigh.

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