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 genuinely non-annotated facts: it costs nothing and starts no browser session, and it spells out what the response contains (browser choice, sign-in link, method, screens, menus, dedicated tools). That return-content disclosure is valuable for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded: purpose and content inventory first, then the invocation rule, then scope and cost. The content list is dense but each item (sign-in link, screens, menus, dedicated tools) tells the agent something it would otherwise have to discover by calling.

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 guide tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, when to call it, scope across any web app, and that it consumes no session. Only a note on response size or whether repeated calls are wasteful is missing.

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' (name or Cotlet slug, default Salonized) and 'task' fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the informal semantics that the app may be outside Cotlet's catalog and that task is the user's goal, which is modest added meaning over structured fields.

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 working guide) and enumerates its contents: browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens, menus, actions, notes, and dedicated tools. It is clearly distinguished from the browser_* action siblings by framing itself as the thing to consult before acting. The phrasing 'How to work in an app by clicking in the user's Cloud Browser' is slightly convoluted, which keeps it short of 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, and the note about apps outside Cotlet's catalog receiving the general method sets expectations for the fallback case. It stops short of saying when NOT to call it (e.g., that it need not be re-invoked for every step in the same app), so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not rule set.

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