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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: the return is a procedural walkthrough, not data, and no UI action is taken. The API/MCP availability note is contextual rather than behavioral, but the core disclosure is genuinely useful for an agent planning a follow-up browser sequence.

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 message is front-loaded and the operative sentences ('opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools') are efficient. However, 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler, and the trailing API-version/MCP-server note with a checked date adds little to invoking the tool correctly.

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, read-only guide tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and what to do next, which is the essential information. It leaves the exact shape of the returned steps implicit, but nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter detail is needed or expected here.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List jobs in the user's own Homerun account') and clarifies that it returns instructions rather than performing the action. It separates itself from the cotlet_browser_* executors, though it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like homerun_list_candidates beyond the resource name.

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 clear operating context: the tool returns step-by-step guidance (screens, buttons, fields), 'opens nothing by itself,' and the actual work must then be done with the cotlet_browser_* tools. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative guidance tool such as cotlet_app_guide, so it stops short of a 5.

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