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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well: it discloses the response shape (total and mfos array with fields), the sorting rule, and the important nuance that rating_average is absent when there are no reviews and this is not a low rating. The canonical_url attribution note adds further behavioral 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 description is compact and information-dense: purpose and return structure come first, followed by usage routing and attribution. Every sentence adds value; there is no repetition or filler.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description compensates by specifying the full response fields, sort order, missing-field semantics, and sibling routing. Combined with the fully described limit parameter, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 only parameter, limit, is fully described inside the input schema, including range, default, and the fact that total always contains the full count. The description itself adds no extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema description coverage.

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 states the tool lists all MFIs in the AlexCredit Kazakhstan catalog with borrower ratings, and enumerates the exact returned fields and sort order. It also names get_mfo and search_offers as alternatives, so the agent can distinguish it from sibling tools.

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 explicitly says to use this tool for market overview and obtaining slugs, and directs to get_mfo for specific MFI terms and search_offers for amount/term matching. This is a crisp when-to-use vs. alternatives statement.

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