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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-open-world behavior. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the tool returns procedural guidance (screens, buttons, fields) and "opens nothing by itself," and it points to the follow-up execution path via the Cloud Browser. The trailing note about Kalodata's official Open API is unrelated to this tool's behavior and adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 first two sentences are front-loaded and do real work, stating what is returned and what it does not do. The third sentence, an aside about Kalodata's official API with a credit-pricing note and a "checked 5 Nov 2026" date, does not help an agent decide or invoke and should be removed or moved elsewhere.

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 guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields) and the natural next step (browser tools). It omits prerequisites such as needing a logged-in Kalodata account or Cloud Browser session, which would strengthen an otherwise adequate definition.

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 no semantic burden for the description to carry. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies nothing is configurable at call time.

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 opening sentence says "Get product details in the user's own Kalodata account," which suggests data retrieval, but the second sentence reveals the tool actually returns step-by-step instructions rather than product data. The verb/resource pairing is specific, and it distinguishes itself from the cotlet_browser_* siblings ("opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools"), but the name/behavior tension leaves an agent needing to read the whole description to understand what it really does.

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 implies a workflow: call this for guidance, then execute with the browser tools in the Kalodata Cloud Browser. However, it never states when NOT to use it, and it does not differentiate from the near-identical sibling kalodata_get_shop_details or from any direct data path. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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