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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond that: the call is free and does not consume a browser session, and it degrades gracefully to a general method for apps outside the catalog. It does not describe the shape or length of the returned guide, which would be the remaining useful detail.

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 trigger sentence and the scope/cost sentences come after the content list rather than first, and the opening sentence is a long colon-delimited enumeration that takes effort to parse. Still, every clause carries information and there is no filler or repetition.

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 convey what comes back, and it does so item by item (browser choice, sign-in link, method, screens/menus/actions, notes, dedicated tools). For a read-only two-parameter guide tool with full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete; only the response format or size is 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%, with both `app` (name or Cotlet slug, default PhotoShelter) and `task` (user's own words) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no new meaning about how `app` should be formatted or how `task` influences the returned guide, 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 the resource (an app's browser workflow) and enumerates concretely what the guide returns: which browser for the workspace, the sign-in link, the step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and the app's dedicated tools. That is far more specific than a restated title. It stops short of naming a sibling tool, so the distinction from cotlet_apps or the cotlet_browser_* actions is implied rather than stated.

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" sets expectations for coverage. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative such as cotlet_apps for discovering apps, which keeps it from a 5.

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