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 safety profile is covered; the description adds the important fact that the tool performs no action itself ('opens nothing by itself') and that the official API is only available on the top plan, explaining why the browser path exists. These are genuine additions beyond structured fields, though no pagination/output-shape caveats are noted.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the key correction that it returns instructions rather than acting. The phrase 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler that could be cut, and the API-plan aside, while useful, is slightly tangential, but overall it is tight.

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 no output schema, the description usefully describes the return value as step-by-step screens, buttons and fields. It also flags the two-stage workflow, so an agent knows what to do next. Minor gaps remain (e.g., whether a browser session must already be open), but nothing essential is missing.

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 meaning the description needs to supply. No schema burden is left unmet.

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 makes clear that despite the 'add_candidate_note' name, the tool does not mutate anything: it 'Returns how to do it in Manatal step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' That is a specific, agent-usable statement of what the tool produces. It lacks explicit differentiation from the other manatal_* siblings (create_candidate, add_candidate_to_job), 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 clear workflow context: call this to learn the screens/buttons/fields, then execute with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Manatal Cloud Browser. That is a concrete when-to-use pattern. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives among the manatal_* siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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