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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the numbers are estimates derived from regional cost data and are explicitly non-binding, which is exactly the caveat an agent needs to relay. It stops short of describing the return shape (e.g. whether a low/high range and currency are included), leaving one gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, then usage and caveats. The middle sentence is long and clause-heavy with semicolons, but every element (triggers, follow-up siblings, non-binding caveat) carries information the agent needs, so nothing is truly wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of framing the result as a 'turnkey price range' and warning it is non-binding, which is adequate for a six-parameter read-only estimator. The only shortfall is that it doesn't clarify what the returned estimate contains (range bounds, currency handling, breakdown), which an agent quoting numbers to a user would benefit from.

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%, so area_m2, country, wood, floors, currency and user_request are all documented in the schema with defaults and ranges. The description gestures at the key inputs (floor area, country, wood type) but adds no syntax, unit or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (estimates the turnkey price range of a wooden house) plus the exact inputs driving it (floor area, country, wood type) and the data source (Geoniks' regional timber construction costs). An agent can immediately distinguish this from design_wooden_house or request_manufacturer_quotes.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('whenever someone asks how much a wooden, log, timber frame or CLT house costs... wants a budget or cost estimate') and names the natural follow-up siblings (design_wooden_house for drawing, manufacturer quotes for real offers). It also sets the boundary — 'An estimate only — binding prices come from manufacturers' — so the agent knows when to escalate instead of relying on this tool.

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