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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it is free and consumes no browser session, which matters for an agent deciding whether to call it speculatively. It doesn't state output shape, but the tool is a retrieval of guidance rather than data.

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-loads the purpose and the call trigger before the detail, and every clause adds information. The trailing enumeration of Trengo actions is dense and mostly duplicates sibling tool names, but it functions as useful matching keywords for the agent, so it earns its place even if slightly long.

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 two-optional-parameter guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what the guide contains, when to call it, its cost profile, and its scope across cataloged and uncataloged apps. An agent has enough to decide to call it and what to pass; only the shape of the returned guidance is left implicit.

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%, so both parameters (app, task) are already documented with descriptions and the Trengo default. The description reinforces that the tool works across any web app and that `app` accepts a name or Cotlet slug indirectly, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it returns guidance on how to operate an app through Cotlet's browser tools, enumerating the contents (which browser for the workspace, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and dedicated app tools). This clearly separates it from the cotlet_browser_* action tools, which perform steps rather than explain them.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call it before the first browser step in an app.' It also covers the fallback case ('one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method') and hints that dedicated app tools exist when available. It stops short of stating a hard exclusion, e.g. that it can be skipped when a dedicated tool already handles the task, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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