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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it is a reference rather than legal advice, includes a reviewed_at field, and provides a source link, setting expectations about provenance and recency. No contradiction with 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 a single dense paragraph but is front-loaded with the resource summary and then proceeds through specific legal topics, usage guidance, and exclusions. It contains no filler or schema duplication, though bullet formatting could have made the list of legal topics slightly easier to parse.

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 read-only reference lookup with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers scope, content, provenance, usage, and sibling routing. It does not give a precise return-shape description, but it mentions reviewed_at and source link, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 only parameter, lang, is fully documented in the schema with an enum, default value, and an explanation that it changes language only, not the dataset. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 that this tool provides the legal context of microlending in Ukraine and enumerates specific content: the 1% daily rate cap, mandatory creditworthiness assessment, penalty limits, collector rules, and military credit holidays. It also explicitly says there is no data on individual MFOs, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mfo and get_reviews.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: use this tool to verify the legality of terms or explain market rules. It also states a clear non-use condition — no data on specific MFOs — and names get_mfo and get_reviews as alternatives, making the when-to-use decision straightforward.

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