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 structurally. The description adds genuinely new context: 'Free, no browser session', which tells the agent this costs nothing and consumes no session before it commits to real browser work, plus what content types the answer contains. It stops short of describing the shape/length of the returned guide.

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?

Purpose and trigger are front-loaded in the first clause, and every phrase carries information (browser choice, sign-in, steps, screens, notes, dedicated tools). The middle is a long run-on enumeration that could be split for scanability, but no sentence is filler.

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 two-optional-parameter guidance tool with no output schema and strong annotations, this covers what the agent must know: when to call, what it returns, and the fallback for uncatalogued apps. The only gap is a hint about the response's form (e.g. a checklist vs. prose) that would help the agent consume it.

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%, with both 'app' (including the ResDiary default) and 'task' fully documented in the schema. The description only loosely alludes to the app ('which browser to use for this workspace') and never explains how 'task' shapes the returned method, so it adds little beyond the schema. 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 (a step-by-step guide for working in a web app through Cotlet's Cloud Browser) and enumerates exactly what it delivers: which browser to use, the sign-in link, the method step by step, screens/menus/actions, notes, and any dedicated app tools. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling cotlet_browser_* action tools, which it positions itself ahead of.

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') and a scope rule ('Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method'), which tells the agent both when to call and what it will get for unknown apps. This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs before reaching for a browser tool.

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