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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by calling the result 'deterministic' and 'illustrative' and explicitly warning that it is not a quote, which helps set expectations beyond the safety annotations.

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 front-loaded, compact, and free of filler. The output components are listed efficiently and the 'Not a quote' caveat follows immediately after the core purpose.

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, and the description partially compensates by naming the main output components and the illustrative nature of the result. However, it leaves the input parameters and their effects unexplained, which is a significant gap for a four-parameter estimator.

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 0% for four parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does not mention task_description, hourly_rate_sek, consultant_hours_per_month, or language, and only indirectly gestures at pricing concepts through the output list.

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 (estimate) and enumerates the estimate components: workflow pattern, model tier, consultant vs fixed monthly range, and running cost. It also distinguishes the output from a formal quote, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as get_pricing_model or start_proposal.

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 phrase 'Not a quote' gives an implied when-not boundary and suggests use for illustrative rather than formal pricing. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over siblings like get_pricing_model, get_offer, or start_proposal.

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