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

With only a title annotation, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the advisor mutates state (correcting facts, pinning insights, notes, presets, candidate mixes) and that these appear in toolsApplied, that the call consumes usage quota, that latency is 20–60 s with progress reporting, and that `disclosure` must be shown to the user. These are non-obvious cost, side-effect, and UX obligations an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then cost, latency, and the disclosure obligation in separate sentences with zero filler. The parenthetical enumerating edit types is dense but each item is informative, so it is efficient rather than bloated.

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 two-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies exactly the missing context: side effects and where they are reported (toolsApplied), quota consumption, expected duration, progress feedback, and a required user-facing disclosure field. An agent could invoke and handle the response correctly from this alone.

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 both parameters are already documented, including that mortgageId comes from list_mortgages and the question is in the user's language. The description reinforces the single-mortgage scoping and 'one question' limit but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — sending one question to the Mashkanta-Buddy advisor about a specific uploaded mortgage — and pins the scope to a single mortgage plus the shared on-site conversation. No sibling tool does advisor Q&A, so it is unambiguously distinguishable from get_mortgage, update_mortgage, or compare_mortgages.

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?

Implies the usage context clearly (answering a user's question about an already-uploaded mortgage, tied to a mortgageId from list_mortgages) and the 20–60 s / quota note signals it is a heavyweight call. It stops short of explicit 'use X instead for quick fact lookups' routing against siblings like get_mortgage.

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