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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the legal context is 'as of the date of the last editorial review' and explicitly instructs the agent to verify reviewed_at for currency. It also states there are no parameters and enumerates the returned fields. It does not explicitly label the tool as read-only, but the informational nature is strongly implied by the content and return values.

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 front-loaded with the primary domain, then states parameter absence, describes return fields, and concludes with usage guidance and the sibling pointer. It is dense but information-rich; the long list of specific legal facts (46%, 0.3%, 179%, 45 МРП, 45 days) helps the agent judge scope, though the single-block format could be more scannable.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists every returned field (country, reviewed_at, summary, details_markdown, source), explains the date-relevance caveat, and specifies the intended use cases. The explicit pointer to get_mfo rounds out the contextual picture, so nothing critical is missing.

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 has zero parameters, and the description explicitly says 'Параметров нет' (no parameters). Since the schema coverage for the empty parameter set is trivially 100%, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and no further parameter documentation is needed.

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 states precisely that the tool provides the legal context of microcredits in Kazakhstan and enumerates the concrete topics it covers: regulator ARRFR, licensing, maximum GESV of 46%, the special regime for short microcredits, MPP value, voluntary refusal via eGov, and signs of illegal lenders. It also explicitly contrasts itself with get_mfo, which provides data on a specific MFO, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings immediately.

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 description gives direct usage instructions: 'Use for questions about the legality of rates, limits, and borrower protection; data on a specific MFO — get_mfo.' This names the exact use cases and the sibling alternative, leaving no ambiguity about when to choose this tool vs. alternatives.

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