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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuinely new facts: it is free, it opens no browser session, it works for any web app, and an app outside the catalog falls back to the general method. What is missing is any indication of response size or structure for the returned instructions.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every subsequent item maps to something the tool actually returns. It is dense and reads as a long packed list rather than clean sentences, which costs a little scannability but wastes no content.

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 convey what comes back, and it does so item by item; annotations cover the safety profile and the 'free, no session' note covers cost. An agent has enough to decide when to call it and what to expect, with only the returned payload's shape left unspecified.

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 with a default (Moxie) and a max length, so the schema carries the load. The description reinforces the app parameter's role by naming which apps and actions are covered, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, 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 enumerates concretely what the tool returns: which browser to use for the workspace, the sign-in link, a step-by-step method, the app's screens/menus/actions, notes, and the app's dedicated tools. That is specific enough to distinguish it from the cotlet_browser_* action tools, though the opening phrase 'How to work in an app' is itself a bit meta and only becomes concrete in the list that follows.

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 and ordering rule, and the Moxie action list signals when it is applicable. It stops short of an explicit exclusion such as 'if a moxie_* tool already covers the action, call that instead' — the dedicated-tools mention implies this but does not state the routing rule.

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