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 context the annotations cannot: it is "Free, no browser session" (no session is consumed) and degrades gracefully to a general method for uncatalogued apps. Since there is no output schema, the description usefully previews what the guide contains, though it does not describe format or size of the returned guidance.

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 is front-loaded in the opening clause, and the colon-delimited list efficiently packs what the guide covers. The closing sentences carry the actionable call trigger and the free/no-session facts with no filler. The single long first sentence is heavy to parse, which is the only real cost.

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?

This is a zero-required-parameter, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, so the description carries most of the burden, and it does explain what the agent will get back and when to call it. The remaining gap is that it does not say how to apply the returned guidance (e.g. that the guide should be re-consulted per app) or what happens if the app name is ambiguous.

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 fully documented, including the "Default: Recurly" fallback and "in their words" for the task. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. The mention of "which browser to use for this workspace" hints that app maps to a workspace context, but this is only implicit.

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 per-app usage guide for driving an app through the Cloud Browser) and enumerates its contents: browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and dedicated tools. It is clearly distinct from the cotlet_browser_* action siblings because it is the read-ahead briefing rather than an action. It is somewhat dense and reads as a content list rather than a crisp verb+resource statement, which keeps it from a 5.

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 that an agent can act on. "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" sets expectations for coverage gaps. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. skip on later steps, or when a dedicated app tool already answers the question), 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.