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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds context by stating 'Uses real market data from our database,' which gives a hint about data freshness and reliability. However, it does not disclose potential defaults for region/category, how missing inputs are handled, or any limitations of the estimate. This is a moderate level of transparency, lacking richer detail that could prevent misuse.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and parameters; the second sentence adds relevant data-source context. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are presumably defined there. The description covers the main input factors and data source, but with 4 parameters and no schema documentation, it leaves ambiguity around region/category values and the meaning of the estimate (currency, accuracy). The tool is relatively simple, so a 3 reflects that it is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to invoke without further lookups.

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%, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter documentation. It lists all four parameters (area, region, category, quality) and provides an enum for quality (economy/standard/premium), which adds value beyond the schema's plain string type. However, it does not explain acceptable values for region or category, their format, or the required nature of area_sqm. This partial compensation earns a 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 clearly states the tool's function: estimating construction project cost, and lists the key input factors (area, region, category, quality). It uses a specific verb and resource, which sets it apart from vague descriptions. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'calculate_cost' or other estimation-related tools, so it misses the full differentiation for a 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate_cost' or 'price_comparison'. It only says 'Uses real market data from our database,' which hints at a data-driven approach but does not state use cases, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. Without this, an agent may struggle to choose between this and similar tools.

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