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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds genuinely new operational facts: the call is free and consumes no browser session, and it returns the method plus the app's dedicated tools. That cost/session disclosure is the main behavior an agent needs before deciding to call it; return shape details are absent but no output schema exists either.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the payload list and ending with the two decisive constraints (when to call, cost). The first sentence is a long colon-separated list that reads densely, but nothing is redundant or padding.

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 read-only guide tool with two optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it returns, when to call it, scope coverage, and cost. Only a brief note on the returned structure's use (e.g., that dedicated tools are surfaced by name for later invocation) would fully close the 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are optional with a documented default (SuiteCRM), so the schema carries the semantics. The description only implies that 'app' can be any web app name and that 'task' is the user's goal context ("in their words"), adding little beyond the schema text — baseline 3.

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 makes clear this is a knowledge/guide lookup that returns workspace browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens, menus, actions, and any dedicated app tools — a specific enumerated resource list. It is distinguishable from action siblings like cotlet_browser_click, though it does not explicitly contrast with cotlet_apps, which could also be consulted when identifying an app.

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 a concrete trigger point, and "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" sets the scope of applicability. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not to call it (e.g., mid-task re-reads), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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