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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuinely new behavior facts the annotations cannot express: it is free and does not open a browser session, which matters given the cost/session model implied by cotlet_balance. It stops short of describing output shape, but no output schema exists to carry that.

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 lead sentence front-loads the resource and then enumerates contents; the remaining sentences carry the call trigger, the coverage note, and the cost note, each earning its place. The enumeration is long and slightly run-on, but nothing is redundant or padded.

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 must say what comes back, and it does list the guide's components plus the catalog-vs-general fallback, which is the key uncertainty for an agent. Only the return format (text guide? structured?) and what happens when 'app' is omitted or unknown are left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including the SoundCloud default and the 120/500 char limits. The description reinforces that the app is workspace-scoped and that 'task' is in the user's own words, but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific resource (a per-app working guide) and enumerates its contents: browser choice and sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens, menus, actions, notes, and any dedicated app tools. That is clear enough to distinguish it from catalog-style siblings like cotlet_apps, though the core verb is implicit rather than stated (e.g., 'returns a guide').

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 relative to the browser_* siblings. 'Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method' sets expectations for coverage, but no alternative tool is named for the case where the agent already knows the app.

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