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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it returns a cost range plus permit guidance, which matters since no output schema exists.

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 clauses, trigger-first ("Use when..."), then the return behavior. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a simple, closed-world, 3-parameter estimator with no output schema, the description covers both invocation trigger and return shape adequately. Only minor gaps remain (estimation assumptions, regional variance), which are acceptable for this tool class.

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 both enums (job, permits) are fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of project types and permit guidance loosely maps to those parameters but adds no syntax or value semantics beyond the schema, 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 (cost/calculate) and resource (electrical work) and enumerates scope examples (panel upgrade, wiring, outlet installation). The electrical domain inherently separates it from the hvac/plumbing/roofing/solar/water-heater siblings, though it never names them 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 electrical work will cost" is an explicit, actionable trigger. It gives clear context but no exclusions or direct pointer to the sibling calculators, so routing is inferred from the domain rather than stated.

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