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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description does add genuinely non-redundant context: "Free, no browser session" tells the agent there is no credit cost and no session is opened, which is not derivable from the annotations. It does not say anything about output size or how the guide is structured when returned.

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 clause is front-loaded and the closing sentences carry the actionable rules (call before the first step, works for any app, free). The middle enumeration is dense and comma-chained, which costs some scannability, but no sentence is 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return value — and it does, listing the browser choice, sign-in link, method, screens/menus/actions and notes. Combined with the explicit sequencing rule and the no-cost/no-session note, an agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the result. Minor gap: no indication of the guide's size or format.

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 app default of "Studio Ninja" and the task field's intent. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that (e.g., what happens if the app name is unrecognized or how the task field shapes the guide). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 operating guide) and enumerates exactly what it returns: which browser to use for the workspace, the sign-in link, the step-by-step method, the app's screens/menus/actions, notes, and app-specific tools. It is clearly distinguished from the cotlet_browser_* action siblings by being the thing you read *before* acting. An agent can tell what this is without opening the schema.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: "Call it before the first browser step in an app." It also preempts a common confusion by saying it works for any web app and that uncatalogued apps still get the general method, which removes the need to consult cotlet_apps first. It stops short of stating when not to call it (e.g., on later steps in the same app), so a 4 rather than 5.

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