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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: 'Free, no browser session' tells the agent there is no cost or live-browser side effect. It also enumerates what the response contains. It stops short of describing output shape or length, but the key behavioral facts are disclosed.

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 content list is dense and runs long in a single opening sentence ('which browser... the method... the app's screens, menus and actions, notes, and the app's dedicated tools'). The call-to-action ordering sentence is front-loaded reasonably, but the paragraph could be split for faster scanning without losing 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-optional-parameter guidance tool with no output schema and safety already covered by annotations, the description supplies the trigger, the catalog/fallback behavior, the cost profile, and the categories of guidance returned. An agent can decide to call it and set the parameters correctly. Only the 'task' parameter's effect remains underspecified.

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%, with both optional parameters (app, task) fully documented including the Workiz default, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning about app scope ('works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method'), but says nothing about the 'task' parameter's role in shaping the guidance.

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 guidance tool that returns the browser choice, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens, menus, actions and notes for working in an app. It also lists the concrete actions covered for Workiz (list jobs, schedule job, create invoice, record payment), which grounds the purpose. The verb is soft ('how to work') rather than a crisp retrieval verb, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Call it before the first browser step in an app,' which correctly sequences it ahead of cotlet_browser_navigate/click siblings. It also handles the fallback case ('one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method'). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but for a read-only guide tool the trigger plus fallback is enough context.

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