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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's most valuable addition is 'Free, no browser session' — a cost/side-effect disclosure an agent cannot infer from structured fields. It stops short of saying whether the guide is cached, versions with the app, or returns anything when the app is unknown beyond 'the general method'.

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 is front-loaded in the opening clause, but the first sentence degenerates into a long comma-chained inventory of guide contents that could collapse into a shorter phrase. The trailing sentences are tight and earn their place.

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, no-output-schema retrieval tool, the description adequately conveys what the caller receives (a per-app playbook plus a fallback general method). Return structure is unspecified, which is a minor gap since the annotation set already makes the call's safety and side effects clear.

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 documented there, including the 'Resy' default, so the schema carries the burden. The description never mentions the task parameter (what the user wants, in their words) or how it shapes the returned method, adding no meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for full coverage 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?

The description states a specific resource: a usage guide for working in a given web app through Cotlet's Cloud Browser tools, and enumerates its contents (workspace browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, dedicated tools). It implicitly separates itself from the cotlet_browser_* action tools by being the thing you consult before performing steps, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 a concrete triggering condition, and 'works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method' sets scope expectations. It lacks an explicit contrast with catalog-discovery primitives like cotlet_apps, so the alternative-routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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