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 two things annotations cannot express: the call is free (no credit spend) and it opens no browser session, which matters in a toolset where every other sibling consumes a session. It does not describe the shape of the returned guidance (prose vs. structured steps), which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: what it returns first, when to call it second, scope caveat and cost last. The opening clause ('How to work in an app by clicking in the user's Cloud Browser with Cotlet's browser tools') is convoluted and could be tightened, but no sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so item by item (browser choice, sign-in link, method, screens, menus, actions, notes, dedicated tools). Combined with the zero-required-parameter, free, no-session framing, an agent has enough to decide and call. Only the return format remains unspecified.

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 only two well-documented optional parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does add meaning for 'app' by stating that an app outside Cotlet's catalog still works via the general method, but it says nothing about the 'task' parameter or how it shapes the returned 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 enumerates the concrete payload of the tool: which browser to use for the workspace, the sign-in link, the step-by-step method, the app's screens/menus/actions, notes, and the app's dedicated tools. That is a specific, verifiable resource ('guidance for app X') rather than a restatement of the name. It only partly separates itself from siblings like cotlet_apps or cotlet_browser_navigate, since it never says what those do instead.

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 triggering condition and ordering relative to the cotlet_browser_* family. 'Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method' pre-empts the common confusion about unknown apps. It stops short of naming a sibling as the alternative for adjacent needs (listing apps, checking balance), so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not map.

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