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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of context annotations cannot express: the call is 'Free' and opens 'no browser session,' which tells an agent it can call this without consuming a session or quota. It stops short of describing how the guide content is returned (prose vs. structured steps).

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 whole definition is a single comma-chained sentence enumerating deliverables, which reads as a dense inventory rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose followed by usage. It stays under ~90 words with no filler, but the list-heavy phrasing makes the key rule ('call it before the first browser step') easy to bury mid-sentence.

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 only two optional parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the remaining burden is telling the agent what it gets back and when to ask for it — the description does both by enumerating guide contents and giving a call trigger. Only the concrete return format is unspecified, a minor gap for a knowledge-retrieval 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% — both `app` (name or Cotlet slug, default Vtiger) and `task` (user's words) are fully documented in the schema. The description only indirectly gestures at `app` via 'the app's dedicated tools' and 'one outside Cotlet's catalog.' That is the expected baseline 3 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?

The description states concretely what the tool produces: which browser to use for the workspace plus sign-in link, the step-by-step method, the app's screens/menus/actions, notes, and any dedicated Cotlet tools. That is a specific resource (a per-app operating guide) rather than a tautology. It does not name a sibling outright, but the 'before the first browser step' framing distinguishes it from the cotlet_browser_* action tools.

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' pre-answers the edge case of an uncataloged app. It lacks an explicit when-not clause (e.g., mid-session re-calls or apps already covered by a prior guide), so it falls just short of the top band.

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