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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains filtering behavior, ordering by rating, the meaning of total and truncated, the shape and semantics of offers, and the null interpretation for first_loan_zero_percent. This is detailed and transparent.

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 information-dense without being bloated. It opens with the core purpose, then methodically covers filtering logic, ordering, output fields, and edge-case guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description fully compensates by listing the exact response fields, explaining truncated behavior, and clarifying the empty-offers case. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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 already covers all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters affect results: MFOs are returned only if the requested amount and term fall within their ranges, and first_loan_zero filters only confirmed zero-rate offers. This goes beyond the basic schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool's function: selecting microfinance organizations (МФО) based on loan amount, term, and first-loan zero-rate flag. It is specific and understandable, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like list_mfo or get_mfo.

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 explicit use context: "Используйте для вопросов «где взять N тенге на M дней»." It also provides practical advice for edge cases, such as increasing limit when truncated is true and relaxing filters when no offers match. It does not, however, state when to prefer a sibling tool.

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