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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly/openWorld=false/destructive=false), and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: entity anonymization, exactly what is returned (top 5, TIN with bonus, initial and post-euribor tranches, effort, discard reasons) and what is deliberately withheld (unbonified TIN, bonus percentages). It also flags the consent precondition.

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 function and then the returned fields and limitations; nearly every clause carries information. It is a dense single paragraph, but a minor structural split between output and constraints would aid scanning.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value burden and does so thoroughly, listing the fields returned and their exclusions. The main gap is the unresolved parameter semantics for a tool with 8 required inputs and low schema coverage.

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 description coverage is only 38%, below the threshold at which the schema alone suffices, so the description is expected to compensate. It only gestures at the input scope ('solo usa datos de la operación y económicos') without explaining any individual parameter such as finalidad, provincia, plazo_anos or the nested titular fields.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it counts matching mortgage products and returns the five best options by cuota, with a precise enumeration of the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from calculation siblings. However, it never names or contrasts any of the sibling tools, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

Usage is implied by the description of a matching/search flow (data in, ranked offers out), and it states the prerequisite that no personal data is required. But there is no explicit 'use this when' guidance and no routing against mortgage_evaluar_viabilidad, mortgage_prescoring_perfil or mortgage_calcular_cuota.

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