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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low; the description still adds real value by stating it returns screens/buttons/fields and that it performs no navigation itself, which is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The trailing paragraph about Kalodata's Open API and credit billing is unrelated to this tool's behavior and dilutes the disclosure.

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 two opening sentences are front-loaded and earn their place, but the third sentence about the official Open API, endpoints and per-credit billing has no bearing on following a shop and reads as boilerplate. Roughly a third of the text is off-topic.

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 guide tool with no output schema, the description says enough: what it returns (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields), that it performs no action, and which tools carry out the action. Only the missing tie-breaker against the other kalodata_* and cotlet_app_guide tools keeps it below a 5.

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; baseline 4 applies. It correctly implies no inputs are needed to obtain the guide.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Follow shop in the user's own Kalodata account") and then clarifies the real deliverable: it returns a step-by-step recipe rather than performing the action. That distinguishes it from kalodata_get_shop_details and the cotlet_browser_* siblings, though the final sentence about the Open API muddies the stated purpose.

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?

"Opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools" gives a usable hand-off rule for the actual action. However, it never says when to pick this over cotlet_app_guide or the native kalodata_* readers, and offers no explicit exclusions.

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