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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: no side effects, no browser opened, returns procedural content, and the API/MCP availability caveat. It does not describe the shape of the returned steps, which matters for a no-output-schema tool.

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 contract lands in the first two clauses, but the trailing API/MCP paragraph, including a dated verification note, is tangential to invoking this tool and adds density without changing the call. The multi-clause run-on structure also makes the key 'no side effects' point easy to miss.

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 tool the description covers purpose, side effects, and the required follow-up tool family, which is enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is what the returned step content looks like and any prerequisite (connected browser session).

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema being an empty, closed object is consistent with the 'opens nothing by itself' claim.

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 makes the unusual contract explicit: the tool returns step-by-step JazzHR instructions rather than candidate data, and 'opens nothing by itself'. That corrects a potentially misleading name (list_candidates) and separates it from the sibling jazzhr_* action tools. It falls short of 5 only because the verb is buried mid-sentence rather than front-loaded.

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 states the follow-on path clearly — get the steps here, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's JazzHR Cloud Browser — which is exactly the alternative an agent needs. It does not say when not to use it (e.g., versus cotlet_app_guide) or what to do if the account is unconnected.

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