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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it is free and opens no browser session, which tells the agent it can call it speculatively at no cost. It does not state how large the returned guidance is or how to handle an unknown app name beyond "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 ("Call it before the first browser step in an app") is clear, but the opening sentence is an overstuffed colon list of six deliverables, and the trailing enumeration of eight Shiftbase actions is a data dump that inflates length. The high-value routing sentence sits in the middle rather than being front-loaded. It is not padded with fluff, but it is not tight either.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the guide's contents (browser choice, sign-in link, method, screens, notes, dedicated tools). Combined with the cost note (free, no session) and the call-timing rule, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. Minor gap: no guidance on what to do if the returned guidance conflicts with a dedicated tool.

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%, so both `app` and `task` are already documented, including the Shiftbase default. The description reinforces the default indirectly by enumerating Shiftbase actions, but adds no syntax or formatting guidance for `app` (slug vs. display name) or for how `task` shapes the returned guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concretely what the tool yields: which browser to use for the workspace, the sign-in link, a step-by-step method, the app's screens/menus/actions, notes, and any dedicated Cotlet tools. It distinguishes itself from the cotlet_browser_* siblings by positioning itself as the pre-flight guide, and from shiftbase_* tools by noting those exist for specific actions. It is not a tautology of the name, though the opening clause is a long cumulative list rather than a crisp single statement.

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 trigger: "Call it before the first browser step in an app." It also sets scope expectations (works for any web app; an app outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method) and points at the dedicated shiftbase_* tools for the enumerated Shiftbase actions. There is no explicit when-not (e.g., whether to re-call on a later step or a second app), so it falls 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.