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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior. The description adds the crucial non-obvious detail that the tool opens nothing by itself, returns procedural UI steps, and must be followed by browser-tool actions, which meaningfully improves transparency beyond the annotations.

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 critical clarification that this is a guidance tool comes after the potentially misleading 'List candidates' opening, and the final sentence about Homerun's public API and lack of an official MCP server is peripheral to invoking the tool. The description is not excessively long, but it could be front-loaded more effectively.

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 sufficiently explains the nature of the return value (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and the follow-up browser actions required. It does not cover error handling or authentication specifics, but the core invocation context is complete.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 under the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and no parameter-related gap is present.

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 clearly states that the tool returns step-by-step instructions for listing candidates rather than returning candidate records, and that it does not open or act on anything itself. However, the opening phrase 'List candidates' can initially mislead an agent into expecting actual candidate data, so the corrective clarification arrives only in the second sentence.

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 concrete workflow: use this tool to get guidance, then carry out the action with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Homerun Cloud Browser. It does not explicitly compare itself to other homerun_* tools or state when not to use it, but the usage context for this procedural tool is clear.

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