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 context: the call is free, consumes no browser session, and returns the recommended browser plus a sign-in link — details an agent cannot infer from annotations. It does not describe output structure or error behavior, but with no output schema and strong annotation coverage this is a modest gap.

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 lead clause front-loads the purpose, and the trigger instruction is placed near the end where it is easy to find. The middle is a comma-spliced enumeration of return contents that reads as a list rather than prose, but nearly every item earns its place by telling the agent what it will receive. No filler sentences.

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 explaining what comes back, and it does so concretely: browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, dedicated tools. Combined with the free/no-session note and the explicit call timing, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly within the browsing workflow. Only the returned format (text vs. structured) is left unspecified.

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 the schema itself documents the default (Printify) and the meaning of both params, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one useful semantic point — that an app outside Cotlet's catalog still works and yields the general method — which clarifies that the app param tolerates unknown values. It adds nothing about the task param's influence on 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 states a specific resource: guidance on operating an app through Cotlet's Cloud Browser tools, including which browser/sign-in link, the step-by-step method, screen/menu/action maps, and any dedicated tools. This clearly separates it from the action-oriented siblings like cotlet_browser_click or cotlet_browser_navigate. It is slightly buried in a long enumerative sentence, but the resource and output content are unambiguous.

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" gives an explicit trigger point, and the phrase "the app's dedicated tools when Cotlet has them" implies routing to dedicated tools over raw browser actions. It also notes that apps outside the catalog fall back to the general method, which tells the agent not to skip the call for unknown apps. No explicit when-not-to-call case is stated.

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