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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint false/idempotentHint true/destructiveHint false, so safety is covered; the description still adds real value by stating it returns step-by-step UI instructions and 'opens nothing by itself,' which is the key behavioral fact an agent needs. The trailing note about Comeet's official API being discretionary is context but not operationally useful for invoking this tool, and no failure modes or output shape are described.

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 payload is front-loaded and clear, but the opening 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' and the closing paragraph about Comeet's Recruiting API partner terms (with a date stamp) are marketing/legal filler that does not help an agent decide or invoke. Roughly half the text is scaffolding around one actionable instruction.

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 guidance tool, the description covers what it returns and what to do next with the browser tools, which is the essential loop. The gap is that it never says where the candidate context comes from (prior comeet_list_candidates call? current browser page?), leaving an agent to infer the handoff.

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 and the schema is fully (vacuously) documented, so per the baseline this lands at 4. No parameter meaning is needed and none is misleadingly implied.

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+resource (invite candidate to self-schedule in Comeet) and then explicitly corrects the likely misconception by stating it 'Returns how to do it in Comeet step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' That tells an agent this is an instruction-generating tool rather than a mutation. It falls short of 5 because the name/verb 'invite' still implies an action the tool does not perform, and the definition never explains how a specific candidate is identified given zero parameters.

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 follow-up path: get the steps here, then 'do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Comeet Cloud Browser,' which distinguishes it from the browser action tools by name. What's missing is any statement of when NOT to use it (e.g., versus cotlet_app_guide or the comeet_* candidate tools that actually change state).

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