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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world, but the description adds information annotations cannot carry: "Free, no browser session" tells the agent there is no cost and no session is consumed, which is decision-relevant before a browser flow. It also discloses the shape of the returned payload, compensating for the absent output schema.

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 and the required contents are front-loaded, and the closing two clauses add genuinely useful constraints. The first sentence is long and clause-stacked, which costs some readability, but no sentence is wasted.

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 describing return contents, and it does so item by item. Combined with the cost/session note and the coverage caveat for out-of-catalog apps, an agent has what it needs to decide to call it and what it will get back.

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 are already documented in the schema, including the "Plausible" default and the Cotlet-slug alias. The description adds only the general note that the tool works for any web app, with no extra detail on how `task` shapes the returned guidance.

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 specific resource (guidance for working in an app inside the user's Cloud Browser) and enumerates exactly what the returned guidance contains: browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and app-dedicated tools. It distinguishes itself from the numerous cotlet_browser_* siblings by positioning itself as the thing to read before using 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?

"Call it before the first browser step in an app" is an explicit trigger condition, and "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" sets the coverage boundary. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. cotlet_apps for enumeration, or skipping it when already mid-session), so the when-not side is only implied.

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