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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context the annotations lack: the call is free and opens no browser session, and the content returned varies depending on whether the app is in Cotlet's catalog. That is real value beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the when-to-call cue, then the coverage caveat and cost note. It is one dense run-on sentence with a long comma list, so it reads less cleanly than it could, but every clause carries information.

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 convey what comes back, and it does enumerate the guide's contents (method, screens, menus, actions, notes, dedicated tools). Combined with the annotation coverage and the two optional parameters, an agent has what it needs to call this 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 (app, task) are already documented with a default of Tidio. The description hints that the app determines which browser and sign-in link are returned, which is mild added meaning, but gives no guidance on task phrasing or slug format beyond the schema. Baseline 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 the resource clearly: a guide for working in an app via the Cloud Browser, returning the browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes and any dedicated app tools. That distinguishes it well from the action-oriented siblings (cotlet_browser_click, cotlet_browser_navigate). It stops short of an explicit verb like 'returns guidance for', which keeps it from a 5.

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' is a concrete when-to-use rule, and 'Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method' sets expectations for coverage. It does not name a sibling as an alternative or state when not to call it, so no explicit alternative routing.

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