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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds important behavioral context: numbers come from document extraction and may be wrong, and callers should show warnings and disclosure. This is useful caveat information beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss error handling or missing-data behavior.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then lists the returned data and usage contexts. It is appropriately sized for a detail-and-analysis tool, though the long Hebrew keyword list is dense and slightly reduces scannability.

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 explains the return contents in useful detail: tracks, risk score, LTV, scenarios, warnings, assumptions, and disclosure. It is nearly complete for a read-only detail tool, though it could mention what happens if the mortgageId is invalid or missing.

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 the single mortgageId parameter is fully described in the schema as coming from list_mortgages. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 returns full detail for one mortgage offer, including extracted tracks and deterministic analysis. It distinguishes itself semantically from list_mortgages and compare_mortgages by emphasizing a single mortgage and detailed analysis, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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?

The 'Use for:' list gives clear contexts such as mortgage mix analysis, tracks, risk score, LTV, and payment-to-income ratio. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name the alternative list_mortgages for discovering mortgage IDs, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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