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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: authentication requirements, additional cost signal ('Free'), the status categories the response will contain, and the fact that a console link accompanies a recommended user step.

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 definition is compact and front-loads the returned status information, with prerequisites stated briefly afterward. The status list is dense but each clause carries meaning, and there is little wasted text.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup with one optional filter, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the important behavioral and return-value context an agent needs. Remaining gaps are minor, such as not stating whether omitting the filter returns all apps.

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?

There is one optional parameter, and the schema fully documents it as 'Only this app, e.g. skool.' The description does not mention the filter parameter at all, but with 100% schema description coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (the user's workspace apps) and the exact status dimensions returned: access granted/requested, Cloud Browser account state, and next step with console link. It is clear what the tool reports, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling cotlet_request_apps tool.

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?

The text gives prerequisites ('Free. Needs the user's Cotlet API key or sign-in.') but no when-to-use guidance or explicit alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the read-only counterpart to cotlet_request_apps, and there is no stated condition for selecting this tool over that sibling.

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