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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: 'Free, no browser session,' which tells the agent this call does not consume a browser session or credits before starting a workflow. It does not describe the shape of the returned guidance, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the call-timing rule and the cost/session note. The opening sentence is a dense comma-separated list that takes effort to parse, but every clause (sign-in link, method, screens/menus, dedicated tools, general-method fallback) carries distinct information.

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 carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the guide's contents plus the general-method fallback. Only the response format/structure (prose vs. structured guide) is left unstated, which is a small residual gap for a two-parameter lookup tool.

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%, so both parameters (app name/slug with its Planning Center default, and the user's task description) are already documented. The description alludes to the workspace browser and app context but adds no format, validation, or fallback semantics beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific resource and outcome: guidance for operating an app via Cotlet's Cloud Browser tools, enumerating what the guide contains (browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, app-specific tools). This clearly separates it from the cotlet_browser_* action siblings, which perform steps rather than explain them.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call it before the first browser step in an app.' Also states the coverage boundary — any web app works, and apps outside the catalog get the general method — so an agent knows it is never a dead end.

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