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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful details beyond them: no authorization required, 60 req/min limit, unknown-slug error behavior, null semantics for first_loan_zero_percent and rating, and data-source attribution. It also clarifies that first_loan_promo_days is not a grace period, preventing misinterpretation.

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 front-loaded with purpose and output contents, then usage guidance, behavior, and attribution. Every sentence adds value, and despite the length, the format remains structured and scannable rather than padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly: loan terms, rates, first-loan promotions, borrower requirements, legal entity, license, documents, rating, and update date. It also covers error behavior, null semantics, and attribution requirements, making the tool effectively self-contained.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents lang and slug fully, including defaults and examples. The description reinforces that the slug must come from list_mfo or search_offers and gives usage context, but it does not add much new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('повна картка однієї МФО за slug') and enumerates the returned content in detail. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_reviews, search_offers, and get_category for other tasks, so an agent can identify when get_mfo is the right tool.

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 when the company is already known, tells the agent where to get the slug (list_mfo or search_offers), and routes alternatives: get_reviews for text reviews, search_offers or get_category for comparisons. This is unambiguous and complete.

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