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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable context: "Free, no browser session" tells the agent this call does not consume or open a browser, which is the key cost consideration when deciding to call it. It does not describe output shape or size, but no output schema exists to conflict with.

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 (call this before the first browser step) is front-loaded, but the opening sentence is a long nested enumeration of contents that is hard to parse in one pass. The trailing list of WellnessLiving actions is useful for routing, yet the middle section mixes what the tool returns with how it behaves, so structure is serviceable rather than tight.

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 annotations covering safety, the description does the remaining work: it explains what the guide contains, when to call it, and that it is free of browser-session cost. The main residual gap is not stating roughly what the returned guidance looks like in practice (length, format), which matters for an agent planning subsequent steps.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both `app` (name or Cotlet slug, default WellnessLiving) and `task` (user's goal in their words). The description reinforces the default indirectly by enumerating WellnessLiving actions but adds no syntax, format, or fallback guidance for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 operating guide: browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, dedicated tools) and states it is a prerequisite read before acting in a web app. It is clearly distinguishable from the granular cotlet_browser_* action tools and from the wellnessliving_* action tools, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 condition, and "Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method" sets expectations for uncovered apps. It stops short of naming the alternative (e.g. skip the guide and call a wellnessliving_* tool directly when the action is already known), so the when-not case is left implicit.

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