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

The annotations say readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which would look contradictory for a tool named 'create candidate' — but the description pre-empts this by stating it 'opens nothing by itself' and only returns step-by-step screens, buttons and fields. That is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. The trailing 'Ashby's official API: Yes' fragment is opaque and adds no actionable meaning.

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?

Three sentences, but the most important fact — that the tool only returns instructions and performs nothing — is buried in the middle rather than front-loaded. The closing 'Ashby's official API: Yes' is a cryptic fragment that does not earn its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately says what is returned (steps with screens, buttons, fields) and the follow-up path. It is missing prerequisites — whether the user must already be signed into their Ashby Cloud Browser — and any hint about multi-account or failure cases, which matter for a tool that hands off to browser automation.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not, however, explain what inputs (if any) shape the returned guide, such as which Ashby account or job context is used.

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 verb and resource ('Create candidate in the user's own Ashby account') and then corrects the framing by stating it 'Returns how to do it in Ashby step by step... and opens nothing by itself.' An agent can tell this is a guidance/instruction tool rather than an executor, though the leading 'Create candidate' phrasing briefly risks being read as a mutation.

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 workflow: call this to get the steps, then 'do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Ashby Cloud Browser.' That names a concrete alternative family and the condition for using it. It does not state when *not* to use it or any prerequisites such as being logged into Ashby.

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