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 new facts: the tool performs no action itself, it returns screen/button/field-level instructions, and it warns that JobAdder's REST API does not cover every account, which explains why the browser path is needed.

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 (this returns instructions, not results) is buried in the second sentence behind a misleading headline, and "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" plus the dated API caveat are filler that dilutes the message. It is not bloated, but the ordering works against the reader.

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 states what comes back (screens, buttons, fields) and how to proceed afterward, which is the essential context. It could say more about the shape or granularity of the returned walkthrough, but nothing blocking 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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing the description needs to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required before returning the walkthrough.

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 headline verb ("Search candidates") promises retrieval, but the second sentence reveals the tool only returns a step-by-step how-to and "opens nothing by itself," so the actual function is guide/instructions, not search. An agent that reads the whole description can figure this out, but the leading framing creates real selection risk rather than cleanly distinguishing it from jobadder_get_candidate or a real search.

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 useful follow-on instruction — call this, then act with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser — which establishes the intended call sequence. It does not say when to skip this tool (e.g., when the user already knows the screens, or when jobadder_get_candidate would answer directly), so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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