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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the call is free and opens no browser session, and it degrades gracefully to a general method for apps outside the catalog. It doesn't describe response size or shape, but that is a minor omission against the strong added 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?

A single dense but front-loaded paragraph that leads with the tool's purpose and closes with the practical preconditions. The embedded list carries real information rather than filler, though the sentence is long enough that the call-to-action sentence feels tacked on.

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 only two optional parameters, a full schema, and annotations covering safety, the description covers what an agent needs: what it returns, when to call it, and that it costs nothing and needs no session. The absence of any note on response format is acceptable given no output schema and the enumerated content list.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both `app` and `task` documented including a default, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the app dimension by noting that apps outside Cotlet's catalog fall back to the general method, but it adds no detail on how `task` shapes the guidance returned.

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 spells out that this is a guidance/instructions lookup for driving a web app through the Cloud Browser, enumerating exactly what comes back: browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and app-specific tools. That content list distinguishes it clearly from the cotlet_browser_* siblings that actually perform clicks. The opening phrasing 'How to work in an app by clicking' is slightly convoluted rather than a crisp verb+resource, which keeps it off 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 in the workflow, and 'Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method' sets scope expectations. It stops short of naming alternatives such as cotlet_apps for resolving an app slug, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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