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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds the crucial behavioral disclosure that the tool 'opens nothing by itself' — it returns procedural guidance rather than data, and must be paired with browser tools. That is real context beyond structured fields. It falls short of 5 because it does not say how much guidance is returned or whether an Ashby session/browser must already exist.

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?

Two sentences carry the essential facts, but the lead sentence contradicts the disclosure that follows it, and 'Ashby's official API: Yes' is an orphan fragment that costs space without adding meaning. The most important fact (it returns instructions, not jobs) should be front-loaded.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does: step-by-step screens, buttons and fields, plus the follow-up tool family. What remains unclear — prerequisites such as an active Cloud Browser session, and how to handle failures — is minor for a read-only guidance tool.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema coverage signal is 100% and no parameter meaning is missing.

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 opening sentence says 'List open jobs in the user's own Ashby account,' which reads like the tool performs the listing, and only the second sentence reveals that it actually returns step-by-step instructions instead. The real verb+output ('Returns how to do it in Ashby step by step (screens, buttons, fields)') is specific once found, but it is buried behind a misleading lead and no sibling (e.g. cotlet_app_guide) is named for contrast.

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 does give forward guidance — do the actual listing with cotlet_browser_* tools in the Ashby Cloud Browser — which is a usable next step. But it never says when to choose this over the direct ashby_* tools or cotlet_app_guide, and the trailing 'Ashby's official API: Yes' is cryptic and provides no actionable selection criteria.

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