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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only that results are limited to OJK-registered (legal) products, and says nothing about pagination, default page size, or ordering — useful behavioral context that is absent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: the resource type, the legal scope, and the optional filter all arrive immediately. It could have added one short clause on pagination without becoming verbose, but nothing present is wasted.

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 three-parameter read-only list tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually (legal product listings). However, with pagination parameters undocumented and no indication of result shape or default ordering, an agent cannot call it confidently beyond the simplest case.

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 only 33%: 'name' is documented as a partial match, while 'limit' (default 50, max 200) and 'offset' carry no descriptions at all. The description restates the name filter without adding match semantics or examples and never mentions how limit/offset pagination behaves, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List ... OJK-registered mutual fund / investment products') with geographic scope (Indonesia), and the qualifier 'legal' separates it from ojk_illegals. It does not explicitly contrast with ojk_product_get or ojk_apps, but the singular/plural naming plus the 'legal' qualifier makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

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?

The phrase 'optionally filtered by name' implies a browse-or-search use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer ojk_product_get for a specific product, and no mention that illegal products live in a different tool. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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