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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond them: it is free and opens no browser session, so the agent knows it is a cheap pre-step. It does not say how large the returned guide is or whether it should be re-fetched per task, which are the remaining behaviors that matter here.

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?

Short overall and front-loaded with what the tool gives you, followed by the call-timing rule and the cost note. The opening sentence is a dense run-on whose middle list (screens, menus, actions, notes, dedicated tools) could be trimmed without losing selection signal.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the guide's sections. Combined with the two documented params and the explicit pre-step timing, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only re-invocation rules are absent.

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% (both params documented, including the Toast default), so the baseline is 3. The description does add a little meaning about `app` — any web app name is accepted, and non-catalog apps fall back to a general method — but it says nothing about how `task` shapes the returned guide.

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 the resource (a per-app working guide for the Cloud Browser) and enumerates its contents: which browser to use, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and dedicated tools. It is unmistakably not one of the cotlet_browser_* action tools. It stops short of a clean leading verb ("Returns/Describes"), so the agent has to infer that calling it yields instructions rather than performing a browser action.

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 an explicit trigger condition, and "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" sets expectations for unknown apps. There is no explicit when-not-to-use clause (e.g., whether to re-call on later steps in the same app), which keeps it from a 5.

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