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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does well: it states the result is preliminary, the final price is confirmed by an operator, visit is included for damage claims, and electronic signature is included. The only gap is no explicit description of the return format or error behavior, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first explains the main calculation, the second covers damage-specific visit inclusion, and the third notes e-signature and operator confirmation. It is front-loaded with the purpose, though the first sentence is fairly dense with numeric details that a more streamlined version might break out.

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?

The schema richly documents all parameters, and the description covers the calculation logic, inclusions, discount, and operator confirmation. With no output schema, the description could mention the return value shape, but the 'preliminary price' nature is clear enough for an agent to call it correctly. Overall, the definition is nearly complete for this complexity level.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds an overall pricing formula (base price + visit + extra copies + delivery − loyalty discount) and inclusion rules, but these largely reinforce schema details rather than fill undocumented parameter gaps. The description does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Считает предварительную стоимость отчёта об оценке' (calculates the preliminary cost of an appraisal report), which clearly states what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by aligning with the website calculator behavior, and none of the sibling tools (list_services, required_documents, answer_faq) perform price calculation.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool – when a user needs a preliminary appraisal price, especially one matching the website calculator. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when a user only needs a list of services or a general FAQ answer.

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