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

Beyond the annotations, it adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts: the tool "opens nothing by itself" (no side effects, consistent with readOnlyHint) and the return is step-by-step UI guidance. The note that MarketSharp's official OData API exists but is admin-enabled read-only adds account-level context an agent would otherwise lack. It does not describe length or format of the returned steps, keeping it short of 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?

The first two clauses are load-bearing, but the closing sentence about the OData API and its admin toggle is tangential to invoking this tool, and the "(checked 11 Oct 2026)" parenthetical adds noise. The key fact (no side effects, returns instructions) is not front-loaded but embedded mid-flow.

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 must define the return value, and it only partially does ("step by step (screens, buttons, fields)") without saying whether any job records come back or what the steps look like. For a zero-parameter, read-only, non-open-world tool the safety picture is adequate, but the output contract remains under-specified against the "List jobs" framing.

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 is 4 and there is nothing further the description could clarify about inputs. No parameter claims are made that could confuse the agent.

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 opening states a specific verb and resource ("List jobs in the user's own MarketSharp account"), but the very next clause reframes the tool as returning "how to do it in MarketSharp step by step (screens, buttons, fields)" rather than job data. An agent cannot tell from the text whether it receives a job list or a procedural walkthrough, so the core purpose is left ambiguous despite the concrete wording.

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 follow-on path ("then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's MarketSharp Cloud Browser"), which implies this is a prerequisite step. However, it never says when not to use it or how it differs from siblings such as cotlet_app_guide or marketsharp_get_contract_status, which plausibly serve overlapping lookups.

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