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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds the return field names ({base_cost, total_cost_eur, note}), which is useful context, but it says nothing about assumptions (e.g., currency handling, elevator impact on price) or edge behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loading the core computation before the return shape and the discovery pointer. Nothing is padded, though the trailing bundle reference is only loosely related to invocation.

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 annotations covering safety, an output schema covering returns, and full schema coverage for parameters, the description supplies the few missing pieces (what it estimates). It is adequate, but could route better against the many sibling cost calculators.

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 all four parameters (including elevator, which the description never mentions) are documented in the schema. Baseline 3 applies; the description adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema.

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 ("Estimate") and resource ("detailed moving cost") plus the driving inputs (volume, distance, floor). It's clear what the tool computes, but it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling calculate_moving_volume or other shipping/cost tools.

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 only routing hint is "See list_bundles for related 'immobilier' calculators," which points at a discovery resource rather than telling the agent when to pick this over calculate_moving_volume, calculate_delivery_cost, or calculate_international_shipping. No when-to-use or exclusion guidance is provided.

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