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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them ('opens nothing by itself'). It adds genuine value beyond the annotations by disclosing the return content (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and the reason it exists (no official JazzHR MCP server). It does not describe output structure or size limits, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 fact — that this returns instructions rather than acting — is front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the API note at the end justifies why the browser path is required. The trailing 'JazzHR's official API... checked 20 Oct 2026' sentence is slightly tangential and could be trimmed, and the opening clause is a bit convoluted.

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?

With zero parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed: what it returns, that it has no side effects, and which tools to use next. Only minor gaps remain, such as how detailed or long the returned guidance is.

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 of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level.

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 explicitly corrects the misleading name by stating the tool 'returns how to do it in JazzHR step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself' — so the agent learns this is a guidance tool, not an email-sending tool. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the cotlet_browser_* siblings that perform the action. The opening sentence ('Email candidate in the user's own JazzHR account from ChatGPT...') reads momentarily like a write action, which keeps it from a 5.

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 an explicit two-step workflow: call this to get instructions, 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's JazzHR Cloud Browser.' That routes the agent to the correct sibling family. It does not state explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., when to skip this and go straight to the browser tools), so it falls 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.