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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context the annotations can't express — 'Free, no browser session' tells the agent this call costs nothing and does not occupy the browser, and the out-of-catalog fallback describes behavior on unknown input. Return values are only implied by the enumeration rather than described.

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 opening clause states purpose immediately, the enumeration of what you get is compact, and the two trailing sentences carry the trigger and the fallback. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 telegraph the return content, and it does so via the enumeration of what the guide contains. A tool with only two optional parameters and read-only annotations doesn't need much more; only error behavior on a totally unknown app 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters carry full descriptions plus the Phorest default, so the schema does the work. The description adds no meaning about what 'app' accepts (name vs. slug) or how 'task' shapes the returned guidance, leaving it at the baseline.

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 the resource precisely — guidance on operating a web app through Cotlet's Cloud Browser — and enumerates the payload (browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, dedicated tools). It implicitly separates itself from the cotlet_browser_* siblings by being the thing you read before acting, though it never states 'this returns guidance, it does not act' in so many words.

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 trigger that an agent can act on without inference. The 'works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method' line pre-empts the main failure mode, but there is no guidance on repeat calls or on the conditions under which it can be skipped.

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