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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low; the description still adds real value by noting "Free, no browser session" — cost and session-consumption context the agent cannot infer from annotations — plus the pre-step timing constraint. It stops short of describing the shape or length of the returned guidance.

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 capability list is front-loaded and the imperative call-timing sentence follows immediately, with no filler. The first sentence is long and comma-chained, which slightly slows parsing, 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?

For a two-parameter, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, cost, and coverage of unknown apps — enough for an agent to decide and call correctly. What the returned guide actually looks like is left implicit, which is acceptable for a documentation-style tool.

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 the app (with its Vimeo default) and the free-text task field are already documented. The description adds only the notion that an app outside the catalog still yields a general method, which is marginal meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource — a guide for working in an app via Cloud Browser tools — and enumerates what it covers (browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, dedicated tools). This clearly distinguishes it from the cotlet_browser_* action siblings, 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?

"Call it before the first browser step in an app" is an explicit trigger condition, and "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" covers the fallback case. The only mild gap is that it doesn't say when to skip the guide on repeat visits to an app already learned.

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