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

The description corroborates readOnlyHint ('opens nothing by itself') and adds genuinely new context: the return payload is a step-by-step procedure, and the official Recruiting API is gated at Comeet's discretion, which explains why browser automation is the path. A concrete return-format statement is exactly the kind of extra detail annotations cannot carry.

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 is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by return behavior and the hand-off to browser tools. The trailing API-licensing sentence is a mild tangent but does justify the guide-then-browse design, so it earns most of its space.

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 input parameters and no output schema, completeness hinges on describing the return value and next step, both of which are covered. The only gap is that the description never enumerates the available statuses or points to the sibling tool that performs a rejection with a reason.

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 parameter semantics baseline is 4; there is nothing the description needs to disambiguate and no schema gap to compensate for.

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 verb and resource ('Change candidate status ... in the user's own Comeet account') and clarifies that the tool returns instructions rather than performing the change. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near siblings like comeet_reject_candidate_with_reason or comeet_decide_go_no_go_step, so disambiguation is left to the agent.

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 clear operational guidance: the call returns step-by-step screens/buttons/fields and 'opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools.' That tells the agent how to sequence this tool with the browser siblings, though it never states when to prefer this over the more specific status-changing siblings.

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