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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description usefully explains why a tool named 'add' is read-only: it returns instructions and opens nothing. That is real added context beyond the annotations. However, it says nothing about what the returned steps look like beyond 'screens, buttons, fields', or what happens if the candidate or session is not available.

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 behavior and next step are front-loaded and earn their place, but 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler and the trailing sentence about Homerun's Public API v2 and the 'checked 22 Oct 2026' date is tangential and dated. Both could be cut without losing actionable information.

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 guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what matters: it names the return content (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and the required follow-up tool family. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior, such as what the steps return if the candidate is missing or the cloud browser session is not set up.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. The description implicitly explains this absence by framing the tool as a guidance generator whose target is resolved later by the browser tools. No parameter-level detail is missing because there are no parameters.

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 pairs a specific verb and resource (add candidate note) with an explicit correction of what the tool actually does: it returns step-by-step UI instructions rather than performing the write. That resolves the ambiguity created by the name 'add'. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling action tools like homerun_disqualify_candidate or homerun_send_candidate_email, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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?

Clear sequencing is given: call this first to get the screens/buttons/fields, then perform the action with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Homerun Cloud Browser. It explicitly states the tool 'opens nothing by itself', which tells an agent not to expect side effects. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or how it relates to the other homerun_* action tools.

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