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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the exact outputs (total, low/high range, line-by-line detail, assumptions list) and the caveat that this is not a quote. It also surfaces key calculation rules like tax rates and the 5 m² exemption, adding substantial behavioral context.

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 dense but well-organized: purpose first, then components, then outputs, then the caveat. Every clause carries information needed for correct invocation, and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what will be returned, the assumptions to cite, and the key tax calculation details. The remaining parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

The schema already covers all 8 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful domain logic—tax rates, exemption thresholds, and how components combine—which helps the agent understand parameter relationships beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Estime le budget total d'un projet pour un modèle donné' and enumerates the exact cost components. It also distinguishes itself from request_quote by explicitly stating 'pas un devis', making its purpose unambiguous relative to siblings.

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 clearly frames when to use the tool: to estimate a project budget for a given model. It provides an explicit exclusion ('pas un devis') and instructs the agent to tell the user the estimate is indicative, but it does not name alternative tools or give detailed when-not-to-use conditions.

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