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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does this well by disclosing the tool's output components (range, per-unit rates, price drivers, estimate limits) and the automatic roof surface multiplier behavior. It does not mention data sources or exact calculation assumptions, but for a read-only estimation tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 three sentences with no filler: it front-loads the core purpose, then adds the critical roof-trade special case, then summarizes return value. Every sentence contributes.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately summarizes the return content. It covers the main input behavior, the roof-specific nuance, and what the caller gets back. It does not explain how to choose between this and get_pricing, but for invoking this tool correctly with the provided schema, the description is sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value beyond the schema by clarifying that for roof trades, measurement is the building footprint and that pitch feeds into an automatically applied surface multiplier. This elevates the parameter understanding beyond raw field definitions.

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 states a specific operation: turns a measurement into a national cost range for a trade, with a clear roof-trade special case. It is clear and actionable, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_pricing, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool (estimating cost from a measurement) and provides concrete usage guidance for roof trades, explaining how to pass footprint and pitch. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions but still offers solid contextual guidance.

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