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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), the description discloses two things the agent cannot infer: the call is free and consumes no browser session, and apps outside the catalog still get a general method instead of failing. It does not describe the shape or length of the returned guidance, but there is no output schema to compensate.

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 and the call-before-first-step rule are front-loaded, followed by scope and cost. The trailing SiteMinder action list is long but earns its place as trigger vocabulary; the only waste is mild restatement between the title-style opener and the colon list.

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 and a read-only, two-param shape, the description carries the full burden of saying what comes back, and it does: browsers, sign-in link, method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and dedicated tool pointers. Cost, scoping, and the unknown-app fallback are all covered, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 already carry descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little meaning by framing 'task' as 'what the user wants done in the app' in the SiteMinder action list, but it gives no guidance on optionality or on how vague task phrasing affects the returned guide.

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 concrete deliverable — a usage guide for a given web app in the user's Cloud Browser — and enumerates what the guide contains (browser to use, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, dedicated tools). That distinguishes it from the browser action siblings like cotlet_browser_click or cotlet_apps, though the opening clause ('How to work in an app by clicking...') is roundabout before the substance lands.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call it before the first browser step in an app.' Also states scope ('Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method'), so the agent knows it is a pre-flight step and not a substitute for the actual browser actions. It does not name a when-not or point at a specific alternative such as cotlet_apps for catalog lookup.

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