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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description reinforces that with the important non-obvious detail 'opens nothing by itself' and names the follow-on execution path (cotlet_browser_*), which is exactly the context an agent needs to avoid assuming the submittal was created. It does not describe the granularity of the returned step list beyond field/button naming.

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 purpose and the follow-on workflow are front-loaded in the first sentence, which is well structured. The second sentence carries a fair amount of API trivia (759 paths, two versions, a check date) whose only real job is justifying the browser-first approach; it is defensible but heavier than needed.

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 guide tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it returns (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields), what it does not do (opens nothing), and how to act on the result (cotlet_browser_*). The only gap is the exact form of the returned text, which is adequately sketched rather than specified.

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 the baseline applies; there is no parameter surface for the description to explain. Nothing in the schema needs compensating prose.

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 specific resource (submittal in JobDiva) and, crucially, corrects the name's implication by saying it 'returns how to do it step by step (screens, buttons, fields)' rather than performing the action. An agent can tell this is a procedural-guide tool, not a mutation. It does not differentiate from other JobDiva tools (e.g. jobdiva_add_candidate_note) that might also be authoring steps, so it stops short of a 5.

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 an explicit workflow: call this first to get the steps, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's JobDiva Cloud Browser. It also implicitly rules out the direct API route by explaining the client-ID requirement, which is a useful when-not signal. There is no explicit exclusion or named alternative guide tool, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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