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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context about the data source (mfoxa.com.ua) and an attribution obligation (use canonical_url), and describes the response composition. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or side effects, though the 'get' prefix implies a safe read.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that covers purpose, content, data source, and attribution. Every clause adds value, with no wasted words or repetition of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing key response elements (selection criterion, sorting, MFO offers table with conditions, canonical_url) and data provenance. The reference to the '.md version' may be obscure, but the description still gives a workable mental model. It lacks pagination or error details, which are not critical for this low-complexity tool.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (lang and slug), including an enum for lang. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a category-based selection with sorting and a table of MFO offers including conditions and canonical_url. It distinguishes from sibling list_categories by focusing on a single category's compiled offers, but does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with search_offers.

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 clear context about what the tool returns—selection criterion, sorting, and an MFO offers table—so an agent can infer when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like list_categories or search_offers, but provides enough context to guide use.

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