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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: 'Free, no browser session' tells the agent this call costs nothing and does not open or consume a Cloud Browser session, and the catalog-vs-generic fallback sets an expectation about answer quality. It does not describe response shape or length, which would help an agent budget context.

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 'call it before the first browser step' rule are front-loaded, and the payload list is compact. The opening sentence is long and colon-chained, packing six items into one breath, which slightly slows scanning but wastes no words.

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 two optional params, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does list the guide's contents. The missing piece is any sense of the response's form or size, which matters for a tool whose whole output is text destined for the agent's context.

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%, so the schema already documents both 'app' and 'task', making 3 the baseline. The description only obliquely implies the app parameter via 'which browser to use for this workspace' and says nothing about 'task' or the surprising REsimpli default, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 resource (a guidance payload for working inside a web app via Cotlet's browser tools) and enumerates its contents: which browser to use, the sign-in link, the step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and any app-specific tools. That distinguishes it from the cotlet_browser_* action siblings without opening a schema. It never states the verb plainly ('returns a guide'), relying on the contents list to imply retrieval.

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 condition, and 'Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method' defines scope and fallback behavior. It does not route the agent away from alternatives (e.g., cotlet_apps for listing the catalog), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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