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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the tool returns procedural instructions and 'opens nothing by itself', so the agent knows no navigation or mutation occurs. It omits what happens if the user has no Supermove account or browser session, and gives no sense of the guide's shape or size.

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 message occupies the first two clauses; the trailing paragraph about Supermove's inbound Developer API endpoints ('New Lead', 'Standard Website', 'Add Survey', 'Update Project', 'checked 28 Oct 2026') is tangential to selecting or invoking this tool and adds noise, including a forward-dated verification stamp. The front-loading is decent but a third of the text does not earn its place.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so only loosely ('step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'). For a guide-producing, browser-handoff tool, an agent would still want to know whether the result is scoped to unassigned-by-crew or unassigned-by-truck jobs and what to do if the account or browser is not connected.

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 and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the text misleads about inputs.

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 name and title say 'list unassigned jobs', but the description reveals the tool actually returns a step-by-step how-to ('Returns how to do it in Supermove step by step (screens, buttons, fields)') rather than the job data itself. That distinction is stated, which saves it, but the reader has to reconcile a data-listing name with a guide-returning behavior, and it never clarifies what 'unassigned' means (no crew, no trucks, no project).

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 does give a follow-on workflow: 'opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Supermove Cloud Browser,' which tells the agent this is a preparation step. However, it never states when to choose this over siblings such as supermove_open_project, supermove_list_projects, or cotlet_app_guide, nor any prerequisite (e.g., needing an active Cloud Browser session or a connected Supermove account).

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