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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior detail — that the dashboard may still be generating and which step it is on — but says nothing about what happens if both or neither ID is supplied, which is the main ambiguity for a caller.

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 resource and its returned state, then the ID rule, then routing phrases. The return list is long but each item is a distinct piece of state an agent may need; the Hebrew keyword block is compact and functional rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return contents and does so thoroughly. The only meaningful gap is error/fallback behavior when the identifier is missing or invalid.

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 field meanings are already documented. The description adds the one thing the schema doesn't encode: that exactly one of mortgageId or miniAppId should be passed. That exclusivity rule is real added value beyond the two nullable UUID properties.

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 uses a clear verb+resource ('the generated dashboard for a mortgage') and enumerates what state is returned (generation step, thesis, archetypes, completeness, warnings, overrides, link). This distinguishes it from get_mortgage, though it never names a sibling 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?

It gives concrete invocation context, including Hebrew trigger phrases ('הדשבורד שלי', 'ניתוח המשכנתא') that map a user request to this tool, plus the 'pass either mortgageId or miniAppId' rule. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming an alternative sibling.

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