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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds that the call is free and opens no browser session, and it previews the guide's contents. It does not discuss permission or auth constraints, but for a no-session read-only guide the added context is substantial.

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 description is compact and front-loads the main trigger in the closing sentence of the first paragraph; the list of returned content is dense but each element is useful. The first sentence is somewhat run-on, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the guide's contents, states the no-session/free behavior, and handles non-catalog apps via the general method. For a two-optional-parameter read-only lookup, that is enough for an agent to call it 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already described there: the app name/slug and the user's task in their own words. The description mentions app-specific content and fallback behavior but does not add syntax, defaults, or explain how the task parameter changes the returned guidance beyond what the schema says.

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 names a concrete resource—the app-specific playbook for driving an app through Cotlet's Cloud Browser—and enumerates what it supplies: browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and dedicated tools. The instruction to call it before the first browser step distinguishes it from the actual cotlet_browser_* execution tools.

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 ('before the first browser step in an app') and explains fallback behavior for apps outside Cotlet's catalog, so an agent knows when to reach for it. It does not explicitly name or exclude alternatives such as cotlet_apps or cotlet_whoami, and it only implies when not to use it through the sequencing hint.

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