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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes further by disclosing no-auth access, the 60 requests/minute limit, no pagination, site-rating ordering, and the meaning of rating: null. This is rich behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 every sentence serves a distinct purpose: content, usage routing, access constraints, ordering, null semantics, and attribution. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds necessary behavioral details without fluff.

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, the description sufficiently explains return characteristics: complete list in one response, no pagination, ordering by site rating, and included fields. For a single-parameter tool with strong annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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 for the single lang parameter is 100%, and the schema itself already explains that lang changes the response language without changing the dataset. The description does not add parameter-level detail, so 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the full list of MFOs from the catalog with NBU licenses, including borrower ratings, review counts, and canonical URLs. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by explaining that search_offers is for amount/term matching and list_categories is for thematic collections.

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 tells when to use this tool: to obtain slugs for get_mfo/get_reviews or to get a market overview. It also names alternative tools for other use cases, giving 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.