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 it well: it discloses that the work is queued/async, that it consumes the AI generation pipeline and usage quota (a real cost signal), and that the deliverable is a link opened on the site rather than readable files.

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 action, then the async follow-up in the correct order. Slightly dense — the quota parenthetical and the polling/link instructions are packed into two long sentences — but every clause earns its place.

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?

Async tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers the entire lifecycle: trigger, returned jobId, polling tool, completion state, and the exact field to surface to the user. An agent can act correctly without further discovery.

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% and already documents '2 to 3 mortgage ids from list_mortgages'. The description's '2–3 of the user's own mortgages' adds only the ownership nuance, so the schema does the heavy lifting as expected at baseline.

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 (queues) and resource (a dedicated comparison dashboard) plus scope (over 2–3 of the user's own mortgages). It implicitly separates itself from sibling tools like compare_mortgages and get_market_comparison by emphasizing 'user's own mortgages' and a generated dashboard, but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (2–3 mortgages, your own) and a full follow-up workflow: poll get_upload_status, then hand over links.site on Completed. It doesn't state when not to use this versus compare_mortgages, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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