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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it returns a price range and explicitly reports HT and TTC with 20% VAT — useful output-shape information given there is no output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with what is priced before the parenthetical aliases and the HT/TTC detail. Efficient and largely free of filler, though the parenthetical French aliases and tax note make it dense.

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 read-only estimation tool with no output schema, the description usefully explains the returned price range and tax treatment, and annotations cover safety. However it omits any routing versus get_quote/request_office_quote and gives no assumptions behind the calculation, leaving gaps for an agent deciding whether this is the right call.

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 86%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters (urgent, windows, condition, surface_m2, rubble_removal, floor_stripping). The description mentions none of them and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 specific verb+resource (price range for a post-construction cleaning) plus geographic scope (Paris/Île-de-France) and domain framing (nettoyage fin de travaux/fin de chantier). It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling estimate tools like get_quote or request_office_quote.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given and no alternatives are named. With siblings get_quote and request_office_quote in the set, the agent must guess which estimate tool applies to which situation, and the description offers no routing help.

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