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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations do not convey: the call is free and opens no browser session, and it returns guide content rather than acting on the page — both material for an agent deciding whether to spend a call.

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?

Purpose and trigger are front-loaded, and the trailing Zendesk action list earns its space by telling the agent which tasks the guide covers for the default app. The middle clause is a long comma-run list that takes a second pass to parse, but nothing is truly redundant.

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 and only two optional parameters, the description carries the full burden and does so: it describes what the guide contains, when to call it, that it works for uncataloged apps, and that it costs nothing and opens no session. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and what it will receive.

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%, with both `app` (name or Cotlet slug, default Zendesk) and `task` documented in the schema itself. The description adds only marginal semantics — that an app outside the catalog still yields the general method — so the standard baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific resource (a per-app working guide) and enumerates its contents: which browser for the workspace, the sign-in link, step-by-step method, app screens/menus/actions, notes, and the app's dedicated tools. It also implicitly separates itself from the action-taking siblings (cotlet_browser_* and zendesk_*) by positioning itself as the reference consulted before those are used.

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 a clear trigger: 'Call it before the first browser step in an app,' and clarifies coverage ('Works for any web app; one outside Cotlet's catalog gets the general method'). What's missing is an explicit negative case, e.g. that once the guide has been read, actual actions go to zendesk_* / cotlet_browser_* rather than being re-derived from this tool.

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