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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: 'Free, no browser session,' which tells the agent this call does not consume a Cloud Browser session. It stops short of describing response shape or size, so with annotations carrying the safety burden a 3 is fair.

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 and there is no filler, but the first sentence is a long comma-chained enumeration that is harder to parse than necessary. Splitting the content list from the timing instruction would improve scanability without adding length.

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 compensates by enumerating what the guide contains (browser choice, sign-in link, method, screens, menus, actions, notes, dedicated tools). Combined with timing and scope statements, an agent has enough to call it correctly. Only the return format/structure is 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% with only two optional parameters, so the schema already explains app and task. The description adds only a soft implication that the app can be any web app and that a missing catalog match yields the general method. That is marginal added meaning 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 states a specific resource and outcome: it returns guidance for working in a given web app (browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, dedicated tools). This clearly separates it from the cotlet_browser_* action tools, which perform steps rather than explain them. It is slightly list-heavy, but an agent can tell what it gets back.

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?

Explicit timing guidance: 'Call it before the first browser step in an app,' which tells the agent exactly when this precedes cotlet_browser_open/click/etc. It also covers the fallback case for apps outside Cotlet's catalog. It does not name an explicit alternative to skip in favor of this tool, which keeps it short of a 5.

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