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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it is free, it opens no browser session, and it returns method/screen/menu notes rather than performing clicks. It does not state what the returned guide looks like, though with no output schema that would have been a useful addition.

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 intent is front-loaded in the first clause, but the opening sentence is a long subordinated run-on listing contents. The closing enumeration of Salonist actions duplicates capability information already implied by the salonist_* sibling tools, and only partly helps routing.

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, read-only guidance tool this is largely sufficient: what it returns, when to call it, its cost, and its fallback behavior for unknown apps are all covered. The main remaining gap is a hint about the shape of the returned guide so an agent knows how to 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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the Salonist default for 'app' and the free-text nature of 'task'. The description clarifies that 'app' accepts anything outside Cotlet's catalog (falls back to a general method), which is real added meaning. It says nothing about how 'task' shapes the returned guidance, leaving the schema to carry that weight.

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 and function: retrieving step-by-step guidance for operating a web app through Cotlet's browser tools, including the browser to use, sign-in link, screens, menus and dedicated tools. It separates itself from the browser action siblings by stating it is free and needs no browser session, and by telling the agent to call it on a dedicated app tool. The core sentence is dense and clause-stacked, which costs some crispness.

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?

Explicit timing is given: 'Call it before the first browser step in an app.' Scope is also set: works for any web app, with a general method for apps outside the catalog. It stops short of when-not guidance (for example, when to skip it and go straight to cotlet_apps or a salonist_* tool), so it is strong but not complete.

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