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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false, and the description adds substantive context beyond that: the plan is computed locally from fixed estimation tables, no project is saved, no external service is called, hours are priced at $100–$150/hr, and the output is a planning range rather than a quote. Those are exactly the caveats an agent must relay to a user.

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?

A single dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the use case and then layers output, method, and exclusions in a logical order. It is long, but nearly every clause carries information; the pricing sentence is the only part that could be trimmed without losing selection-relevant meaning.

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 compensates fully by describing the returned plan's contents (effort ranges, team, timeline, phases, stack, budget). Combined with the 100%-covered schema and the read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it and set user expectations correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds handling guidance the schema does not: map the user's idea onto the closest enumerated features and disclose the mismatches in the reply. It does not otherwise explain individual parameters, so it stops short of a 5.

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 names a specific verb and deliverable ('scope' → 'rough plan with effort ranges for each feature, the team, a timeline range, phases, a suggested stack and a budget') and enumerates the triggers ('app, website, SaaS, marketplace, internal tool, AI feature or MVP'). It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like audit_website_speed or get_pulore_booking_link.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition ('someone wants to know what it would take to build a software product') and explicit exclusions ('Don't use it for projects that aren't software (like renovations, events or business plans), for task or project management, or to write code'). It also instructs the agent on partial-fit handling: map the idea to the closest features and state what doesn't fit.

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