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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses no-auth access, a 60 req/min rate limit, static text identical across requests, canonical Ukrainian legal norms, lang affecting only the note field, the MFOHA data source, and the canonical_url attribution requirement. This is rich behavioral context.

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 and somewhat long, but every clause carries operational information: scope, content, use cases, alternatives, behavior, rate limit, language, data source, and attribution. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has no filler, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 simple reference tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It enumerates the returned legal topics, references the reviewed_at field and source link, explains language behavior, and gives usage constraints and attribution instructions.

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% for the single lang parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance by clarifying that legal norms remain canonical in Ukrainian and that lang only affects the note field, which helps an agent understand the actual effect of the parameter.

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 identifies the resource: legal context of microcredit in Ukraine, explicitly framed as a reference rather than legal advice. It lists specific legal topics and distinguishes itself from get_mfo/search_offers by stating it contains no data about specific MFIs.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: checking legality of terms or explaining market rules. It also names alternatives (get_mfo or search_offers) for cases where specific MFI data is needed, making the routing decision unambiguous.

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