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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description usefully adds that the tool performs no action itself and instead yields a screen/button/field walkthrough to be executed via the browser tools. The closing sentence about Kalodata's official Open API, with its odd 'checked 5 Nov 2026' date and per-credit billing, is contextual trivia that doesn't help an agent invoke this tool.

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 behavior is front-loaded and clear, but the third sentence about the official Open API is tangential to invoking this tool and adds length without decision value. The middle sentence is dense but earns its place because it explains the instruction-only behavior and the follow-up browser tools.

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 guide tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields), what it does not do (open anything), and what to do next (cotlet_browser_* tools). What's missing is any indication of the response shape or how granular the returned steps are, and no differentiation among the other kalodata_list_top_* siblings.

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 the baseline is 4, but the description supplies no information about what an invocation needs or scopes (e.g., which ranking, period, or category is implied by 'top'). With no arguments available, an agent has no way to narrow the request, and the description does not acknowledge or explain that limitation.

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 ('List top videos') and scoped it to 'the user's own Kalodata account', which is specific enough for selection. However, it immediately reframes the tool as returning step-by-step instructions rather than a video list, leaving some tension between the name and the actual function. It also does not distinguish itself from the similarly named siblings kalodata_list_top_creators, kalodata_list_top_products and kalodata_list_top_shops.

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 clear guidance: the tool returns step-by-step instructions and 'opens nothing by itself', and execution should then be done 'with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Kalodata Cloud Browser', which is an explicit handoff to concrete alternatives. It does not state when NOT to use this tool, nor how to choose between it and the other kalodata_list_top_* siblings.

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