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 useful context that the call is free and consumes no browser session, but says nothing about how fresh or cached the returned playbook is, or what happens if the app name is unrecognized.

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 core instruction is front-loaded, but the opening sentence is an overlong list that mixes what the guide returns with calls to action, and "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" restates the same point twice. The trailing "Free, no browser session" is valuable but tacked on rather than integrated.

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 describing the return and does so by enumerating the guide's sections, plus notes it costs nothing and opens no session. Sufficient for an agent to call it correctly; only the freshness/fallback behavior for an unknown app 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% and both parameters are documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest meaning by implying the guide's content (browser choice, sign-in link, dedicated tools) is tailored to the named app and that the user's own words drive the method, though it does not explain how `task` changes the output.

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 makes clear this is a pre-flight guide that returns the workspace's browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and app-specific tools. It is distinguishable from the cotlet_browser_* action siblings because it produces guidance rather than performing a browser action, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from cotlet_apps (the catalog-listing sibling).

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, and "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" sets expectations for unknown apps. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. use cotlet_apps to discover what is in the catalog) or stating when it is unnecessary.

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