estimate_dev_cost

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions premium payment requirements (pay per call with USDC or prepaid key), but does not discuss auth needs, rate limits, data modification, or side effects. The description adds context beyond the schema but is incomplete for a mutation-free tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and subsequent sentences add value: usage context, exclusions, parameter list, and payment details. It is efficient, albeit slightly lengthy, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description partially covers return format ('per-unit and extended line items') but does not explain the exact output structure or error handling. With five parameters and no output schema, more detail on return values and edge cases would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter names and notes that jurisdiction/address are alternatives, which adds minor clarification, but does not provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 that the tool estimates 'total MUNICIPAL FEES for a whole development project' and distinguishes it from total project cost by explicitly listing exclusions (land, hard construction, soft costs, financing, profit). It also specifies the calculation method (fees × number of units) and includes context about developer pro-forma needs.

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 context that this tool is for sizing the fee line of a pro-forma before breaking ground and mentions it is dev-type aware with exclusions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it against sibling tools like get_total_dev_cost or get_fee_breakdown, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.

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