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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains what the tool returns, includes a reviewed_at date with an explicit warning to verify freshness, and notes that the content is based on the last editorial review. It does not discuss side effects or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter read-only context tool this is adequate.

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 dense but well-organized: substantive legal facts come first, followed by return fields, freshness caveat, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and the alternative tool is mentioned only at the end where it belongs.

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 zero-parameter tool without an output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it names all return fields, explains the meaning of reviewed_at, lists the covered topics, and provides usage criteria. An agent can confidently decide when to call this tool and what to expect from it.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. It even states 'Параметров нет' (no parameters), which removes any doubt. This meets the baseline expected for a parameterless tool.

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's resource (legal context of microcredits in Kazakhstan) and enumerates its specific content: regulator, licensing, GESV limits, short-term microloan regime, MRP, eGov refusal, and signs of illegal lenders. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_mfo by stating that data on a specific MFO should come from 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 explicitly says to use this tool for questions about rate legality, limits, and borrower protection, and directly names get_mfo as the alternative for specific MFO data. This gives an agent clear routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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