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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description is consistent and reinforces this by saying it opens nothing by itself. It adds useful context about the return value (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and the required follow-up surface (Lever Cloud Browser). It does not mention auth, session prerequisites, or quota costs for the subsequent browser calls.

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 instructions are front-loaded and clear, but filler dilutes it: 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is promotional, and the trailing 'Lever's official API: Yes.' is cryptic and adds no actionable meaning for the agent. The useful content could be stated in one tighter sentence.

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 guide tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (step-by-step UI instructions) and what to do next (cotlet_browser_* in the Lever Cloud Browser). No return schema exists, so the description carries that burden and does so adequately, though it omits what the guide looks like structurally or how to verify success.

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 beyond the action implied (archive a candidate with a reason and email). Baseline of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (archive with a reason and email in Lever) and clarifies the crucial mechanic that it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. An agent can distinguish it from cotlet_browser_* tools, which the description explicitly defers execution to. Minor ambiguity remains because 'archive with a reason and email' reads like an action name for what is actually a guide-returning tool.

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?

Gives a clear two-step workflow: call this to get Lever's screens/buttons/fields, then execute with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Lever Cloud Browser. It also excludes an assumption by stating it 'opens nothing by itself.' It stops short of naming when not to use it or which specific browser tool chain to follow.

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