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

No action is taken — 'opens nothing by itself' — which is the single most important behavior here and is stated plainly, consistent with readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false. The API-availability caveat adds useful context for why a browser-based path exists. The 'checked 22 Oct 2026' stamp is a future date that reads oddly and the API sentence is slightly ambiguous, costing a point.

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 ('opens nothing by itself') is front-loaded within the first sentence, which is good. But 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler, the API sentence with the dated parenthetical is tangential, and the structure reads as one run-on construction rather than cleanly separated purpose, return value, and next step.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of explaining what comes back (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and what the agent should do next, which is what an agent needs to plan a call. The remaining ambiguity — how the note content or target candidate is conveyed given zero parameters — is not resolved.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline applies and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Notably, the absence of any candidate identifier parameter is a schema-level gap the description does not address.

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 discloses the actual function, which the name obscures: it returns step-by-step instructions for adding a candidate note rather than performing the write. 'Returns how to do it in JobAdder step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself' is specific and tells an agent this is a guidance tool, distinguishing it from jobadder_create_candidate and the mutating cotlet_browser_* siblings.

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 workflow context: call this to get the steps, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the JobAdder Cloud Browser. That is clear sequencing guidance. It stops short of explicit exclusions, e.g. when to prefer cotlet_app_guide or when the REST API path makes this unnecessary.

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