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 genuinely new behavioral facts: the call is free and opens no browser session, and results degrade gracefully to a general method for apps outside Cotlet's catalog. What is missing is any hint about the shape or size of the returned guidance.

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 in the opening clause and the operational instructions follow in two short sentences. The long middle enumeration of guide contents is a run-on colon list, but it earns its place by telling the agent what it will receive.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return payload, and it does so by enumerating the guide's sections. Combined with the no-session/no-cost note and the uncatalogued-app fallback, an agent has enough to decide and call correctly; only return format details remain unstated.

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 (app, task) are documented in the schema, including the Strava default, so the description has little left to add. It mentions 'the app's name or Cotlet slug' only implicitly through context, not as parameter guidance. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 concrete resource (a per-app working guide: which browser, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, plus dedicated tools) and implies retrieval. It is distinguishable from the browser action siblings because it clearly returns guidance rather than performing clicks or navigation, though the verb itself ('returns a guide') is only implied.

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 timing rule relative to the cotlet_browser_* siblings, which is the key usage decision. It also clarifies fallback behavior for uncatalogued apps. It does not name a competing alternative or state when not to call it, 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.