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

The description adds useful context beyond the annotations by disclosing that it returns instructional output and opens nothing by itself, consistent with readOnlyHint=true. However, it does not warn that the actual rejection performed via the browser is irreversible or that there are permission prerequisites, and the trailing 'Ashby's official API: Yes' is an opaque fragment that adds no behavioural 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?

The core content (returns instructions, then use cotlet_browser_* tools) is front-loaded and clear, but the boilerplate 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' and the dangling 'Official API: Yes' line are filler that dilute the useful sentences.

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, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the essentials are present: what it returns and how to follow up. What is missing is the risk context of the downstream rejection (irreversibility, required Ashby access) and any explanation of the cryptic 'Official API' statement.

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 to disambiguate; the schema is empty and fully specified. Baseline of 4 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 states a specific action (rejecting a candidate in Ashby) and then clarifies the actual mechanic: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the rejection. The clarification 'opens nothing by itself' distinguishes it from the cotlet_browser_* action tools, though the leading verb 'Reject candidate' initially implies it does the work itself.

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 two-step workflow: call this first to get the screens/buttons/fields, then execute with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Ashby Cloud Browser. It does not state when NOT to use it or what to do if the session is not in Ashby, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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