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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds the crucial non-obvious behavior: the tool does not perform the action ('opens nothing by itself') and instead returns a step-by-step guide, including what the output contains (screens, buttons, fields). It also explains the missing-API constraint, which is genuinely useful context beyond the structured fields.

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?

It is compact and largely front-loaded, with the return-content and browser follow-up stated early. The closing 'Workever's official API: Workever publishes no public API' is awkwardly phrased and somewhat redundant, and the opening sentence is slightly at odds with the correction that follows.

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 tool with no output schema, the definition covers what the tool returns, that it mutates nothing, why no API path exists, and which tools to use next. Only the absence of guidance versus sibling workever_* tools leaves a small gap.

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 input schema has zero parameters and additionalProperties is false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description could have noted that the tool takes no arguments, but no parameter meaning is missing.

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 definition states a specific verb and resource and clarifies what the tool actually returns: 'Returns how to do it in Workever step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' That correction of the 'create job' framing lets an agent separate it from workever_create_quote and the other workever_* siblings, though the leading sentence still reads like it performs the creation, which costs some precision.

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 next step and the mechanism for it: 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Workever Cloud Browser,' and rules out an API route by stating Workever publishes no public API. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over workever_create_quote or workever_schedule_job, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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