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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses useful behavior: missing inputs fall back to defaults and the result is a low/high quote range for 2026. However, it does not clarify output format, currency, or whether there are side effects beyond pure calculation.

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 second sentence about fallback defaults is useful and earns its place. However, the opening phrase 'Scaffolding cost calculator calculator' is redundant and the title already states the same information, so the structure could be tighter.

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?

For a relatively simple calculator with four well-documented parameters, the description gives the core purpose and the fallback behavior. But with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explicitly state what the returned low/high values look like or how to interpret them, leaving a notable gap.

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% and all four parameters already have meaningful descriptions and defaults in the schema. The description adds only the fallback-to-defaults behavior, which the schema's default values already imply, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Run') and resource ('Scaffolding cost calculator'), and adds that it produces low/high ends of typical 2026 quotes. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as calculator_describe, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, or submit_enquiry. The description implies 'use this to calculate scaffolding costs' but does not state alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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