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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this by saying it 'opens nothing by itself,' which prevents a false assumption that the call performs the lookup. It also discloses the nature of the payload (screens, buttons, fields) and the API-key prerequisite, adding real context beyond the annotations.

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 instruction is front-loaded and useful, but 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler and the trailing API-key note with a checked date is only tangential — it explains why not to use the API, yet reads like boilerplate rather than guidance the calling agent needs mid-task.

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 guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, that it has no side effects, and how to continue with the browser tools. The remaining ambiguity — whether a specific candidate can be targeted and what the output looks like structurally — is minor but real.

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 schema takes zero parameters and is fully self-describing, so the description carries no parameter burden. It could have clarified that no candidate identifier is accepted (the guidance is generic), but with 0 params and 100% schema coverage the baseline applies.

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 explicitly reframes the tool: it 'Returns how to do it in Recruiterflow step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself,' which prevents an agent from mistaking it for a data-fetch despite the 'get_candidate' name. It is specific about the resource (candidate) and the output type (procedural guidance), but never states that the guidance is generic rather than tied to a specific candidate.

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 clear follow-up path — call this, then act with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser — and explains why the official API is not used (keys are not self-serve). It does not say when to prefer this over recruiting-data siblings such as recruiterflow_list_candidates or cotlet_app_guide, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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