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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating the tool opens nothing and only returns guidance — resolving the apparent name/annotation tension. It also explains the fallback context (JobDiva's REST API needs a JobDiva-issued client ID and there is no official MCP server), which justifies why the browser route exists. It stops short of describing the shape or length of the returned instructions.

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 operational guidance is front-loaded and the handoff to cotlet_browser_* is stated early. The closing API paragraph, with '759 paths across two versions' and a checked-on date, is supporting rationale that runs longer than needed and could be trimmed without losing decision value.

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 carries the burden of explaining the return value and does so: step-by-step instructions covering screens, buttons, and fields. Combined with the explicit no-side-effects statement and the handoff path, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the format/length of the returned guide is unspecified.

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; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No misleading parameter language is present.

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 states a concrete behavior: it returns a step-by-step JobDiva walkthrough (screens, buttons, fields) rather than performing the creation, and it explicitly says it 'opens nothing by itself'. That distinguishes it from the cotlet_browser_* tools it hands off to. The leading phrase 'Create candidate' mirrors the title and could momentarily mislead an agent into expecting a write, but the clarification arrives in the same sentence.

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 clear workflow position: call this first to get instructions, then execute them with cotlet_browser_* in the user's Cloud Browser. It does not explicitly say when not to use it (e.g., versus jobdiva_find_candidate or jobdiva_create_submittal) or what to do if a candidate already exists, so exclusions are absent.

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