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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses important behavioral facts: data source (mfoxa.com.ua), canonical language ('Legal facts are maintained in Ukrainian only'), that lang affects only the note field, the presence of a manual-check date, and a citation requirement (canonical_url). These go beyond the basic purpose, though the read-only nature is implied rather than explicit.

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 moderately concise, listing essential legal content followed by usage and source notes. Every sentence provides specific value, though the mix of Ukrainian and English and the dense legal citations make it slightly less approachable. It remains within an acceptable length.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description covers the main content areas, data provenance, language behavior, update date, and citation instruction. This is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke the tool correctly. It does not enumerate all return fields beyond canonical_url and note, but the overview is reasonably complete for this simple resource.

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 fully documents the lang parameter with enum and default, so the baseline is 3. The description adds non-obvious semantics: 'lang affects only the note field' and clarifies that legal facts remain canonical in Ukrainian regardless of lang. This extra nuance justifies a higher score.

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 provides legal context of microlending in Ukraine, listing specific legal topics (rate limit, creditworthiness assessment, fines, collectors, military credit holidays). This distinguishes it from sibling tool categories like MFOs, reviews, and offers. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'retrieves', relying on the tool name itself.

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 usage context is implied: an agent would use this tool when legal market rules are needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor when not to use it. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion criteria.

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