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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: 'Free, no browser session,' which tells the agent this costs nothing and consumes no browser state, plus the contents of the returned guidance in lieu of an output schema. It doesn't describe response shape, size, or failure behavior for an unrecognized app beyond the general-method fallback.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the routing instruction ('call it before the first browser step') lands early. The middle enumeration is dense and comma-stacked, making it read as a run-on, but no sentence is pure 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 only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return contents, and it does so concretely. Trigger timing and free/no-session behavior are covered. The only shortfall is not clarifying how the optional task parameter tailors the guide.

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 both parameters documented, including the Sleeper default, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little meaning by implying app identity and that unknown apps fall back to a general method, but it says nothing about how the optional 'task' parameter changes the returned guidance, which is the one semantic gap the schema leaves.

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 and outcome: guidance for working in a named app inside the user's Cloud Browser using Cotlet's browser tools. It also enumerates what the guide contains (browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens, menus, actions, notes, dedicated app tools), which separates it from the browser action siblings. It is slightly convoluted as a single run-on sentence, so the verb ('guide me') takes a moment to extract.

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 that routes the agent ahead of cotlet_browser_open/navigate/click. It also states it works for any web app and that off-catalog apps get the general method, covering a common edge case. It does not name cotlet_apps as the discovery alternative or say when to skip the guide entirely.

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