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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces that consistently by stating it opens nothing by itself. It adds genuine context beyond the schema: the output is a procedural walkthrough, and the official API is unavailable because keys are not self-serve (must be requested from Recruiterflow support) — useful auth rationale. It does not cover failure modes, such as the user not being logged in to the Cloud Browser.

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, each carrying distinct information: what it returns, that it performs nothing, and how to actually execute it, plus the API availability footnote. No redundant restatement of the title.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only guide tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields), the follow-up tool family, and why the API path is not an option. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description could add parameter meaning, and none is needed; the note content itself is presumably supplied later through the browser fill_form tools.

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 lands on a specific behavior: this returns step-by-step instructions ('screens, buttons, fields') for adding a note and 'opens nothing by itself.' That said, the opening sentence ('Add note in the user's own Recruiterflow account...') reads like an action and is only corrected by the next sentence, so the real purpose is front-loaded ambiguously. Once read fully, an agent can tell it apart from a real write tool and knows the actual mutation happens via cotlet_browser_* tools.

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?

Explicit sequencing: call this first to get the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Recruiterflow Cloud Browser. It does not name when to skip this tool (e.g., if the user already knows the UI) or what to do if the browser session is not authenticated, 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.