get_dev_costs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool aggregates and normalizes data from public fee schedules, is free, and is indicative. It honestly marks coverage levels and never passes off estimated data as exact. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, which would be helpful. Still, the behavioral traits are well communicated.

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 fairly long but well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then explains inputs, coverage levels, and caveats. Every sentence adds value, but some redundancy exists (e.g., explaining what the fee is). It is front-loaded with the main action. Could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient.

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 complexity of the tool (multiple fee types, coverage levels, need for jurisdictional data) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool does, how to use it, what the output looks like, coverage honesty, and limitations (indicative, verify with jurisdiction). It covers all essential aspects for effective use.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains the difference between 'jurisdiction' and 'address' inputs, provides examples, and clarifies that the tool extracts the city+state from the address. It also describes the output (aggregated USD, split, summary), which compensates for the lack of an output 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?

The description clearly states the tool gets the total municipal development cost for building a standard single-family home in a US jurisdiction, listing specific fees included (impact, water/sewer, capital-recovery). It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning that breakdown, comparison, and premium tools are separate, making the purpose very specific and unique.

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 explicitly tells when to use (development feasibility, pro-forma analysis), what inputs to provide (jurisdiction or address with examples), and how the output is used (the number needed for analysis). It also provides guidance on coverage levels (deep, partial, estimated) and directs to premium tools for more detailed breakdowns, effectively differentiating from siblings.

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