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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the description's value-add is in telling the agent this call is "Free, no browser session" – a real behavioral fact the agent cannot infer from the annotations. It also discloses the shape of the response (method, screens, menus, actions, notes, sign-in link), which matters since there is no output schema. It does not discuss request cost or caching of an already-retrieved 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?

It is compact in word count, but the entire body is one long sentence with an embedded list, so the key instruction ("Call it before the first browser step") is buried mid-sentence after the enumeration of contents. Front-loading the trigger and splitting the content list out would materially improve scanability.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does the necessary work of saying what comes back and how it varies for uncatalogued apps. With two optional parameters and a complete schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the behavior when the guide has already been fetched is unaddressed.

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%, with both `app` and `task` fully described including the Paperless Post default, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the guide is tailored to the named app and the user's goal in their own words, but adds no format or fallback semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 resource and outcome: getting guidance for working in a web app via Cotlet's browser tools, enumerating what the guide contains (browser to use, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens, menus, actions, notes, dedicated tools). It distinguishes itself from the many cotlet_browser_* siblings by positioning itself as the prerequisite that precedes them. The opening phrasing is a slightly loose run-on, which keeps it off a 5.

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." It also scopes coverage (any web app; apps outside the catalog get the general method) and points at the app's dedicated tools when they exist, implicitly routing to sibling tools. It stops short of naming a concrete when-not-to-call case, such as already having the guide in context.

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