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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two genuinely new behavioral facts beyond them: the call is "Free" (cost) and spawns "no browser session" (side-effect profile), which matters because its siblings all operate a live Cloud Browser. It does not describe the response format, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, but the first sentence is a long colon-delimited catalogue of contents that reads as a run-on. Each item is arguably useful for setting expectations of what the guide returns, yet the list could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 does the work of describing what comes back by enumerating guide contents, and the free/no-session note covers the operational questions an agent would have. For a two-optional-parameter read-only lookup whose annotations are rich, this is close to complete; only the exact shape of the returned guide is left unstated.

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% — both `app` (name or Cotlet slug, default Patreon) and `task` (user's words, 500 char cap) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the indirect hint about workspace-specific browser choice and does not clarify how `task` shapes the returned guide, so it earns the baseline rather than more.

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 — a per-app operating guide covering which browser to use, the sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, and dedicated tools — so an agent knows it retrieves instructions, not page content. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the many cotlet_browser_* siblings by being the thing you read before using them. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, which keeps it from 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?

"Call it before the first browser step in an app" is an explicit, actionable trigger, and "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" tells the agent not to skip it for uncatalogued apps. What is missing is a clear alternative route (e.g., use cotlet_apps to discover the slug first), so the routing story is clear but not exhaustive.

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