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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: "Free, no browser session," which tells the agent this call carries no cost or session side effect, plus a preview of what comes back.

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 is front-loaded in the first clause, and the trailing short sentences deliver the trigger condition and scope. The opening enumeration of contents is dense and somewhat list-like, but every item earns its place as a preview of the return.

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 convey what the tool yields, and it does so concretely (browser choice, sign-in link, method, screens, tools). Combined with the cost/session note and the call-timing rule, an agent has everything needed to decide and invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (app, task) are already well documented in the schema, including a default for app. The description adds no further detail on how app or task shape the returned guidance, so the baseline 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?

Names a specific resource (per-app guidance for working in a Cloud Browser) and enumerates its contents: browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and dedicated tools. This clearly separates it from the cotlet_browser_* action siblings, which perform steps rather than explain them.

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, and the sentence about non-catalog apps sets scope expectations. There is no explicit when-not-to-call guidance (e.g. skipping on repeat calls in the same app), so it falls just 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.