Home Repairs Estimator — Cost Calculators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that it "Returns cost range with permit guidance," which is modest extra context given no output schema exists; it says nothing about estimation basis, region, or accuracy caveats.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger followed by the return behavior. The trailing "or any electrical project" is mildly redundant after the enumerated examples but does not bloat the definition.

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 usefully discloses the return shape (cost range plus permit guidance), and the schema plus annotations cover inputs and safety. Minor gaps remain around estimation assumptions and locality, but nothing essential to invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all three parameters (job, permits, stories) carry descriptions and enums, so the schema fully documents inputs. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 purpose — estimating cost for electrical work — and enumerates representative jobs (panel upgrade, wiring, outlet installation), which pins the domain clearly against the trade-specific siblings (hvac/plumbing/roofing). It never names a sibling explicitly, but the trade vertical is unambiguous.

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?

"Use when a user asks what electrical work will cost" is an explicit, actionable trigger condition. There is no when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named, but the routing intent is clear from the phrasing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of the result (low/high range, regional context, contractor comparison guidance), which is meaningful because there is no output schema to convey this.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the usage trigger is front-loaded before the behavior and output summary. Every sentence earns its place.

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 adequately signals what comes back (cost range, regional context, contractor guidance) and the schema fully documents inputs. Only a thin gap remains on precision of the returned values and any caveats, which is minor for a deterministic read-only calculator.

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% with enum values for system, work_type, and efficiency, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description mentions home size, system type, and efficiency but omits work_type and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, fitting the baseline 3.

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 and resource ('returns low/high cost range' for HVAC work) and names the trigger question directly, so an agent can identify it as a cost estimator. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling cost calculators (electrical, plumbing, roofing), relying on the tool name for that differentiation.

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?

It gives a clear use condition ('Use when a user asks what HVAC replacement, installation, or repair will cost'), which is actionable context. However, it offers no exclusions or routing away from the sibling calculators when the user's question is not HVAC-specific.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful output context — a cost range plus contractor guidance — without contradicting the read-only 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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the usage trigger front-loaded and the return value following. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple three-param, no-output-schema calculator, the description covers both when to call it and what it returns. It could add estimation caveats (e.g., regional variance, non-binding range), but 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with fully enumerated params, so the schema already documents job, access, and urgency. The description echoes the job categories in prose but adds no syntax or interpretive value beyond the schema, so 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 clear purpose: produce a plumbing cost estimate ('what plumbing repair, pipe replacement, or emergency plumbing will cost') and names the return content ('cost range and contractor guidance'). The plumbing domain distinguishes it from electrical/hvac/roofing/solar siblings implicitly, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Use when a user asks what ... will cost' gives an explicit trigger condition tied to a user question. No when-not or explicit alternative is stated, but the domain boundary against the other cost calculators is obvious.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds that the result is a cost range plus contractor guidance, which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists. It omits the area bounds (500-8000 sq ft) and the fact that pitch/tearoff/material are optional, which would have helped set expectations.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the trigger condition is front-loaded ahead of the input/output summary. Every clause earns its place.

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 correctly compensates by naming the return (cost range and contractor guidance), and annotations cover the safety profile. It is nearly complete, missing only a note on which parameters are optional and the area limits.

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% with enums documented for pitch, tearoff, and material, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description only restates area, pitch, and material and omits tearoff entirely, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema. 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 resource (roof cost) with concrete scope variants (new roof, replacement, repair) and names the inputs (area, pitch, material). The domain word 'roof' separates it from the electrical/hvac/plumbing/solar/water-heater siblings, but it never explicitly acknowledges or routes away from those alternatives.

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?

'Use when a user asks what a new roof, roof replacement, or roof repair will cost' is an explicit, well-scoped trigger condition that tells the agent exactly which user intent selects this tool. It gives no when-not condition or guidance on choosing between this and other cost calculators.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful output context (cost, payback timeline, incentive guidance) that the annotations do not convey, though it says nothing about precision, assumptions, or regional limitation of the results.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the trigger front-loaded and the return payload second. Every clause earns its place.

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 correctly covers the return payload, and annotations cover safety. What remains thin is the assumption surface (e.g., regional pricing, whether incentives are location-specific), a minor 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 100% and each of the four parameters (including three enums) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, units, or interpretation beyond that, 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 domain (solar) plus the calculations performed (system cost, payback timeline, incentive guidance), and the name itself separates it from the sibling cost calculators. It never explicitly names a sibling, so 4 rather than 5.

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 opening clause gives an explicit trigger ('Use when a user asks what solar panels cost, solar installation cost, or solar payback period'), which maps directly onto user intent. It offers no when-not conditions or routing to the electrical/HVAC/roofing calculators, so it stops short of 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context. It does so by disclosing the return shape and explicitly scoping out heat-pump units, which the structured fields never state.

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?

Three tight sentences, zero filler, with the usage trigger front-loaded before the return description and the scope caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns and does so minimally ('cost range by type, fuel, and size'). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a complete enum schema, only the exact output format (currency, single vs multiple values) is left unspecified.

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 coverage is 100% with all three parameters enum-constrained and self-documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description echoes the same type/fuel/size axes but adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction rules beyond what the enums already convey.

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 resource and verb-scope: what a water heater replacement or installation costs. The description names the exact output dimensions (type, fuel, size) and the domain makes it trivially distinguishable from the electrical/hvac/plumbing/roofing/solar 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 opening clause gives an explicit trigger ('Use when a user asks what a water heater replacement or installation costs') and the heat-pump note acts as a clear when-not exclusion. It does not reference the sibling calculators, but the domain boundary is unambiguous, so the missing alternative routing is minor.

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