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 reinforces this with "opens nothing by itself" plus the concrete return content (screens, buttons, fields). The API plan-availability note is extra context an agent would otherwise lack. It stops short of describing failure modes or whether the guide is reused/cached across calls, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the API-availability caveat earns its place. The weakness is ordering: putting "Add candidate to job" first implies direct execution and forces the agent to read on to learn the tool is documentation-only.

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 and no parameters, the description must carry the burden of explaining how the target candidate and job are determined — presumably from conversation context — and it never does. It does adequately explain what comes back (a step-by-step guide) and how to act on it, which keeps it at the minimum viable level rather than inadequate.

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; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameters are silently omitted from the schema.

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 action and resource ("Add candidate to job in the user's own Manatal account"), but the front-loaded sentence reads as if the tool performs the action, while the real function — returning step-by-step instructions — appears only in the second sentence. Once read in full it distinguishes the tool from real mutation siblings like manatal_move_candidate_to_stage, but the ordering works against fast selection.

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 one clear routing instruction: use cotlet_browser_* tools to actually perform the add after getting the guide. It does not state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., versus move_candidate_to_stage or drop_candidate_with_reason), nor any prerequisite such as knowing which candidate/job is targeted — a real gap for a zero-parameter tool.

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