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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool uses average price per m² by material and region from actual data, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only (likely safe), if there are rate limits, or if it caches results. The description adds some context beyond the schema but lacks full transparency.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear introductory sentence followed by parameter explanations in a bullet-like format. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (so return values are covered), the description is complete for a straightforward cost calculator. All four parameters are explained, and the overall purpose is clear. No additional behavioral context is needed beyond what is provided.

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%, yet the description adds rich meaning for each parameter: area is required with an example, material lists enum values, region specifies city vs nationwide, and floors indicates adjustment. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 clearly states the tool calculates estimated construction cost based on real market data. It uses a specific verb 'calculate' and defines the resource 'construction cost'. The description distinguishes it from siblings like price_comparison and project_estimator by mentioning real market data and per m² pricing.

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 provides context on how to use the tool (parameters) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus sibling tools. No guidance on exclusions or alternative tools is given, leaving the agent to infer from parameter descriptions.

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