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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/idempotent, and the description adds the genuinely non-obvious trait that the tool only returns a procedure and performs no action ("opens nothing by itself"), which is exactly the behavioral fact an agent needs before chaining into cotlet_browser_* calls. The closing "Lever's official API: Yes" adds no discernible behavioral meaning.

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?

Two sentences carry the purpose, the key behavioral caveat, and the follow-up tool chain, with no repetition. The audience phrase ("from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent") and the cryptic API note are minor filler but do not disrupt the front-loaded structure.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is needed: that the return value is a step-by-step procedure and that execution happens via browser tools. It is slightly less complete about what the step output contains (whether it includes URLs or field values), but the contract is clear.

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 no parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter meaning to convey or compensate for. Baseline 4 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("list opportunities in the user's own Lever account") and then clarifies that the tool itself returns step-by-step instructions rather than data, which prevents the most likely misread. It falls short of a 5 because the opening clause still reads like a data-retrieval tool, and the sentence has to walk that back in the next clause.

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 sequencing instruction: use this to get the steps, then execute them with cotlet_browser_* tools, and it states that the tool opens nothing itself. It does not name alternatives or exclusions (for example when cotlet_app_guide would be preferred), so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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