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

Annotations already declare this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by stating the call is free and opens no browser session, and that uncatalogued apps get the general method. It does not describe the return format or how the guidance is delivered.

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 description is front-loaded with the core instruction and call timing, but the first sentence is a long list that is somewhat dense and repetitive with the title. Information is useful, but the structure could be tighter and easier to scan.

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?

For a lightweight guide tool with two optional, fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, scope, and cost/session behavior well. The main omission is what the output looks like, but no output schema exists and the guide nature is implied.

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%, and both parameters have clear descriptions, including the default app value. The tool description adds no meaning about how app or task affect the response, so the schema does the heavy lifting; 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 clearly establishes this as a guide/instruction tool rather than a browser action: it explains how to work in an app using Cotlet browser tools and names what the guide covers, including browser choice, sign-in link, method, screens, menus, actions, and dedicated tools. It is distinguishable from browser action siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with cotlet_apps.

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 a clear call condition: 'Call it before the first browser step in an app.' It also clarifies applicability ('Works for any web app') and what happens for apps outside Cotlet's catalog. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the prerequisite timing is strong.

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