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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-open-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context: it is free and opens no browser session, and it reveals the guide's content (browser choice per workspace, sign-in link, step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and dedicated tools when available). It does not specify length or response shape, but that is secondary for a documentation-lookup 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 purpose is front-loaded, but the middle is a single long colon-separated enumeration that is hard to scan and mixes content description with usage guidance. Every element is relevant, yet the packaging could be split into clearer sentences or bullets.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does: browser choice, sign-in route, step-by-step method, screens and actions, notes, and pointers to dedicated tools. Combined with the clear invocation timing and the no-session/free note, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 parameters documented including the ZenMaid default, so the baseline is 3. The description implies an app and a user task are used but adds no syntax, format, or fallback behavior 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?

States a specific resource and function: a guide on how to work in an app inside the user's Cloud Browser via Cotlet's browser tools. It is clearly differentiated from the many cotlet_browser_* siblings as the preparatory step rather than an actual browser action, though the phrasing 'how to work in an app' is somewhat abstract at the start.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger — 'Call it before the first browser step in an app' — and notes the coverage boundary: any web app works, and apps outside the catalog get only the general method. No explicit when-not-to-use case is offered, but the sequencing rule is unambiguous.

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