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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the tool returns procedural instructions and "opens nothing by itself," meaning no browser session or side effect occurs, and execution is deferred to cotlet_browser_*. This is consistent with, not contradictory to, the annotations.

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 guidance is front-loaded, but the middle clause is tangled ("Returns how to do it in JobDiva step by step... and opens nothing by itself; then do it with..."). The final sentence about JobDiva's REST API, 759 Swagger paths, client-ID requirement, and a checked date is background trivia that does not help an agent decide to call or invoke this tool.

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, read-only guidance tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers what it returns and the next step. It omits prerequisites (must a JobDiva Cloud Browser session already be open? is the user authenticated?) and does not say what the returned guide contains relative to specific search criteria, which leaves real gaps for an agent planning a multi-step flow.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not explain how search criteria (titles, skills, locations) get conveyed given the empty schema, leaving the agent to assume criteria are supplied through the browser tools, but there are no parameters whose meaning needs clarifying.

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 does state a specific verb and resource ("Search candidates in the user's own JobDiva account") and clarifies the actual output: a step-by-step guide of screens, buttons, and fields. However, the opening framing as a search tool is misleading until the second sentence reveals it only produces instructions, and it never distinguishes itself from sibling jobdiva_find_candidate or jobdiva_search_jobs.

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 follow-on path ("then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's JobDiva Cloud Browser"), which tells the agent what to do after calling it. It offers no when-not guidance and no comparison to the other JobDiva candidate-lookup tools in the sibling set, so the agent must infer which entry point to choose.

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