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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them by stating "Free, no browser session" — cost and side-effect information an agent cannot infer from annotations — but it says nothing about response shape or length, so the guide's size/format remains unknown.

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 purpose and the key call-timing instruction are front-loaded, and the trailing clauses about universal applicability and no-session cost are worth including. The single very long sentence with stacked commas is dense, though nothing is genuinely redundant.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what the guide contains (method, screens, menus, actions, notes, dedicated tools) and that it works for uncatalogued apps. The main missing piece is a hint of how large/structured the returned guide is, but an agent can call it correctly from this.

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%, with both parameters documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some flavor (which browser/sign-in link the guide supplies) but never explains how the `task` parameter shapes the returned method, nor that `app` defaults to Tumblr when omitted — an omission the agent must discover from the schema.

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 (a per-app working guide covering browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens, menus, actions, notes, and any dedicated app tools), which is far more specific than the title alone. It also implicitly separates itself from the cotlet_browser_* action siblings by framing itself as the orientation material to read first, though it never names a sibling tool outright.

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 point in the workflow, and the mention of "the app's dedicated tools when Cotlet has them" signals where this guide hands off to other tools. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. when not to bother calling it, or how it relates to cotlet_apps).

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