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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts on top: "Free, no browser session" tells the agent this lookup consumes no session and no cost, which materially affects when an agent is willing to call it. It does not describe the shape or length of the returned guidance, but that is a minor gap for a read-only reference tool.

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 timing instruction and the coverage claim are front-loaded, which is good, but the opening sentence is a long comma-chained enumeration of guide contents that is hard to parse on first read. The trailing Workever action list ("Create job, Schedule job, Create quote...") is useful disambiguation but makes the description longer than it needs to be for a generic lookup tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears responsibility for telling the agent what comes back — and it does, enumerating the guide's sections and confirming that uncatalogued apps still get a general method. Combined with full schema coverage and clear read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call this correctly. Return format/length is the only unaddressed detail.

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%, so both parameters (app, task) are already documented in the schema, including the Workever default. The description reinforces this by noting the guide covers "which browser to use for this workspace" and lists Workever's supported actions, but it adds no syntax, format, or fallback semantics for the task parameter beyond what the schema says. 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 states a specific resource — a per-app how-to guide covering browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and any dedicated Cotlet tools — and the framing ("clicking in the user's Cloud Browser with Cotlet's browser tools") separates it from the cotlet_browser_* action tools. It is clear what the tool returns, though the purpose sentence is dense and reads more like a contents list than a single crisp statement.

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?

Explicit timing is given: "Call it before the first browser step in an app," which tells the agent exactly where this fits in a sequence. It also states coverage breadth ("Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method"), removing a common uncertainty. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or a when-not condition, so it is strong but not a 5.

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