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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the call is free and opens no browser session, and it returns workspace-specific browser choice plus a sign-in link. It does not describe the response shape or whether results are cached, which keeps it below 5.

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 core instruction "Call it before the first browser step in an app" is buried after a long comma-chained inventory of guide contents, and the "Works for any web app..." clause repeats the coverage idea. The content is mostly useful, but the front-loading is weak and the first sentence is a run-on.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: when to call it, that it is free and sessionless, and roughly what the answer contains. Only the shape/format of the returned guidance is left unspecified, which is a minor gap.

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%, with both `app` (name or Cotlet slug, default Plex) and `task` fully documented in the schema. The description refers to "the app" and "this workspace" but adds no new meaning about how `task` shapes the guidance or what happens when `app` is omitted. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific resource (a how-to guide for working in an app via the Cloud Browser) and enumerates its contents: browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and dedicated tools. This clearly separates it from the action siblings (cotlet_browser_click, cotlet_browser_navigate, etc.) and from the catalog tool cotlet_apps. It is a bit list-heavy, but an agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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 an explicit trigger: "Call it before the first browser step in an app," and clarifies coverage ("Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method"). It does not name an alternative to use instead in any situation, nor a when-not condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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