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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond those: it is free and opens no browser session, so the agent knows it incurs no cost or session state before starting browser work. It does not describe the shape of the returned guidance, which keeps it from a 5.

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 is front-loaded in the opening clause and the operational cues ('Call it before the first browser step', 'Free, no browser session') follow. The middle enumeration of screens, menus, notes, and tools is somewhat list-heavy but each item tells the agent what the guide contains. No sentence is purely 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 low-complexity, two-optional-parameter read-only guide with no output schema, the description covers scope, call timing, fallback behavior, and cost. The main residual gap is that it doesn't say what form the guidance arrives in or what happens if the app name is unrecognized, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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% and both parameters are already documented, including the Service Autopilot default, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little meaning by listing the concrete Service Autopilot actions covered (Create job, Reschedule visit, List invoices, etc.), which hints at what task values are useful, but it adds no new syntax or format guidance.

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 (an in-app working guide) and enumerates what it returns: which browser to use for the workspace, sign-in link, step-by-step method, app screens/menus/actions, and the app's dedicated tools. That is far more than a restatement of the title. It falls short of 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the many cotlet_browser_* siblings, though 'Call it before the first browser step' implies the ordering.

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 trigger point in the workflow. It also states the fallback condition: any web app works, and one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method. No explicit when-not-to-use case or named alternative tool is given, so it stops short of a 5.

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