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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the tool performs no action itself, returns step-by-step screen/button/field instructions, and requires a follow-up browser tool pass. The credit-billing note for Kalodata's Open API is peripheral but adds cost context.

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 operative content is front-loaded and useful, but the final sentence about Kalodata's official API, endpoint families and credit billing (with a dated check) reads as marketing boilerplate that does not help an agent invoke this tool. Two of the three sentences earn their place; the third bloats the definition.

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, no-output-schema guidance tool, the essentials are present: what it returns, that it mutates nothing, and which tool family continues the workflow. It could be tighter on the expected output shape and on failure modes (not logged in, Cloud Browser unavailable), but nothing critical is missing for a correct call.

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 for a parameterless schema applies.

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 clearly identifies the resource (categories in the user's Kalodata account) and, importantly, corrects the misleading verb in the name by stating it 'Returns how to do it in Kalodata step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' An agent can tell this is a procedural-guidance tool rather than a live search. It stops short of differentiating itself from cotlet_app_guide, which appears to serve a similar instructional role.

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 one clear forward reference: use this first, then act with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. That is genuine usage sequencing. However, there is no guidance on when NOT to use it, no mention of the related cotlet_app_guide sibling, and no note on preconditions such as being signed in to Kalodata.

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