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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so credit here is for added behavior. The description discloses the fixed 2026 MRP rate anchor, which tells the agent this conversion is year-pinned and has no other rate versions available — a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the searchable multilingual aliases come first, then the mechanism, then the use case. The alias line is slightly redundant for an agent but defensible; nothing else is padding.

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?

Adequate for a two-way converter, but there is no output schema and the description never says what is returned. The lang parameter implies the response also carries source titles, limitation notes and page links, yet the description omits any mention of those outputs, leaving an agent to infer the return shape.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both enums (unit, lang) are fully self-documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description restates the MRP↔tenge direction but adds no format, rounding, or boundary semantics beyond the schema's minimum/maximum constraints.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Converts between MRP ... and tenge') and names the exact rate basis (2026 MRP value), which no sibling covers. The added clause about fines, fees, benefits and tax thresholds in MRP makes it distinguishable from tools like kz_traffic_fine_discount or kz_indicators_2026 without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear triggering context: use for fines, fees, benefits and tax thresholds that the law states in MRP. That is real when-to-use guidance, but it names no alternative tool or any when-not condition (e.g., do not use for statutory reference data lookups).

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