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

With readOnlyHint=true already declared, the description adds real context: nothing is opened or changed by the call itself, and the output is a procedural walkthrough rather than data. The API-access note explains why the browser route exists (Comeet grants API access at its discretion). It stops short of describing the instruction format or any failure modes.

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 operative content (returns steps, mutates nothing, follow up with browser tools) is front-loaded and tight, but 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler and the closing API/partner-terms sentence is long and only tangentially useful to invocation.

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 characterize the return value, and it does so concretely (screens, buttons, fields). Combined with the zero-parameter schema and the read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it and act on the result; only edge cases like missing permissions or steps not found are unaddressed.

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 schema semantics to add and no risk of undocumented inputs; baseline 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 names a specific recruiting action (Go/No-go step) and then crucially clarifies that the tool does not perform it but returns step-by-step instructions covering screens, buttons and fields. That distinction is the key disambiguation, though the tool name alone reads like a mutation, so the reader must finish the second sentence to get it right.

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 states the follow-up path explicitly: use this to get the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Comeet Cloud Browser. It does not name exclusions or the cotlet_app_guide sibling, so an agent has a clear workflow but no explicit when-not-to-use rule.

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