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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the tool only returns a link, the person fills the form themselves, and no personal data is received or stored — a useful privacy/behavior guarantee.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core deliverable and followed by the sequencing context and the privacy note. No filler.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so explicitly (it returns a link to an external form). For a zero-parameter tool it gives everything an agent needs to select and call it.

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?

Zero parameters, so by rule the baseline is 4; the schema is empty and fully covered, and there are no parameter semantics the description needs to compensate for.

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 action and deliverable — 'devuelve el enlace al formulario' — plus the resource (the scplus.es form for a mortgage study). It also situates itself against siblings by naming the preceding steps ('una viabilidad, un prescoring o unas ofertas'), so an agent can distinguish it from mortgage_evaluar_viabilidad, mortgage_prescoring_perfil, and the offer 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?

Clear context for use: this is the step to proceed with an advisor after a viability, prescoring, or offers. It gives the trigger condition well but offers no explicit exclusions (e.g. when NOT to use it versus continuing with simulations).

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