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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description reinforces rather than repeats: 'opens nothing by itself' explains why a 'create' tool is read-only. It also discloses the return content (screens, buttons, fields) and adds the rationale that JobAdder's REST API is 'not for every account', justifying browser automation. The odd future-dated check ('22 Oct 2026') slightly undercuts precision but does not contradict anything.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the key clarification that the tool returns instructions and does not act. The phrase 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is marketing filler that earns nothing, and the API-coverage aside is tangential, but nothing is structurally confusing.

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 strong annotations, the description covers what is missing: what the call actually returns and how the follow-up work is performed. It does not say how complete or context-specific the returned steps are, which is a modest gap for an agent deciding whether one call suffices.

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 input schema is an empty object with no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless, static-guide call rather than suggesting any hidden inputs.

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 names a specific resource (candidate in JobAdder) and, crucially, clarifies that the tool does not actually write anything: it 'Returns how to do it in JobAdder step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'. That distinguishes it from a true mutation sibling, though the opening phrase 'Create candidate in the user's own JobAdder account' initially reads like a write operation and could briefly mislead before the correction lands.

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 usage sequence: call this to get the step-by-step procedure, 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's JobAdder Cloud Browser'. That is clear when-to-use and what-to-use-next guidance. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or comparison against siblings like cotlet_app_guide, so it is not a 5.

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