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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description is fully consistent with them ('opens nothing by itself'). Beyond the annotations it adds real information: the return value is procedural guidance (screens, buttons, fields) rather than data, and that a separate browser tool family must carry out the action. Return format detail beyond 'step by step' is not spelled out.

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 information is front-loaded and each of the three sentences carries substance (what it returns, what it does not do, the API caveat). However 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler, and the parenthetical '(checked 20 Oct 2026)' with a future-dated stamp is noise an agent cannot act on.

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, no output schema, and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description supplies what an agent actually needs: that the output is instructions, that nothing is mutated, and which tool family to use next. The only shortfall is that it does not hint at the shape of the returned guidance.

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 (empty object, additionalProperties false), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter-related confusion is introduced.

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 and then immediately corrects the likely misreading of the tool name by stating it 'Returns how to do it in Manatal step by step... and opens nothing by itself' — i.e. it is a guidance tool, not an executor. That distinction from the cotlet_browser_* executors is clear. It loses a point because the opening sentence 'Search candidates in the user's own Manatal account' actively invites the wrong expectation before the correction arrives.

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 an explicit two-step workflow: call this to get the screens/buttons/fields, then perform the action with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Manatal Cloud Browser. The API note ('only on the top plan') explains why browser automation is the route. It does not state any exclusion or say when this tool is unnecessary, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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