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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the diverse data fields included (conditions, requirements, commissions, legal data, rating, actualization date), which is useful. However, it omits response format, error behavior, and whether it returns a single object or collection.

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 description is a single efficient sentence that packs many content categories. It is concise, though a structured list could improve scannability. Every phrase contributes substance.

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 simple get-by-slug tool, the description offers a strong overview of the response content but lacks practical details like how to find the slug and what the output shape is. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema has one parameter (slug) with zero documentation, and the description never mentions it. While the slug name is self-explanatory, the description adds no value for understanding how to supply or obtain the slug. Low schema coverage demands compensation that is not provided.

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 indicates the tool returns a detailed MFO card with specific content categories (conditions, commissions, legal data, rating). The verb is implied by the resource type but not explicitly stated. It effectively distinguishes from list_mfo by focusing on a single card's detailed content.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus sibling tools like list_mfo or search_offers. The description only outlines the content returned, not the selection criteria or business context for choosing it.

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