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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them by stating it 'opens nothing by itself.' It adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: the return is a step-by-step screen/button/field guide and the actual mutation happens through browser tools. The trailing 'Lever's official API: Yes' is cryptic and adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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 definition is short and front-loads the key distinction (returns instructions, opens nothing) before naming the execution path. Phrasing is slightly awkward — 'Returns how to do it in Lever step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself' — and the final 'official API: Yes' clause reads as bolted-on filler.

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 guidance tool, the description covers what it returns and how it chains into cotlet_browser_* tools, which is the essential information an agent needs. Minor gaps remain: it doesn't say what happens if no Lever browser session exists or how detailed/failure-prone the returned steps are.

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 no parameter meaning for the description to supply. Baseline for a no-parameter tool applies; the description correctly implies no inputs are needed to retrieve the guide.

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 the resource and outcome (add a note in the user's Lever account) and clarifies a non-obvious detail: this tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. It is distinguishable from write siblings like lever_email_candidate because it explicitly says it opens nothing itself and defers execution to cotlet_browser_* tools. The only wrinkle is that the name/title imply a direct action while the body describes a planning/guidance tool, which costs a point.

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 clear usage context: call this to learn the Lever note-creation flow, then execute it with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Lever Cloud Browser. It does not state explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer a direct API-based sibling), but the workflow routing is unambiguous enough to act on.

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