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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: it is free and consumes no browser session, which matters materially in a catalog where most siblings drive a paid Cloud Browser. It doesn't discuss response size or caching, but that is minor here.

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 list of returned artifacts is somewhat padded and the single most actionable sentence ("Call it before the first browser step in an app") is buried at the end instead of front-loaded. The trailing "Free, no browser session" is high-value and could have led the description.

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 no output schema, the description must describe what comes back, and it does so concretely (browser choice, sign-in link, method, screens, notes, dedicated tools). Combined with the cost statement and call-timing guidance, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only return shape/formatting remains unspecified.

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% and both parameters are fully documented, including the Zen Planner default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description hints that the app name shapes the returned guidance but adds no syntax, slug format, or task-phrasing advice beyond the schema.

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 that this tool returns guidance for operating a web app through Cotlet's browser tools and enumerates the payload: which browser/sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and any app-specific tools. That clearly separates it from the cotlet_browser_* action siblings, which actually perform the steps. It falls short of 5 because the opening clause is a dense run-on rather than a crisp verb+resource 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?

"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" sets coverage expectations. What's missing is an explicit alternative route (e.g. use cotlet_apps to discover a slug first) or a when-not condition.

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