estimate_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does it well: it declares read-only, explains that complete stays false while anything is unentered, that missing pieces are counted at $0, and that unpriced enumerates the holes. What's not disclosed is anything about volume/size of the estimate or permissions, but for a zero-argument read that is a minor gap.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded ('The priced estimate — the canvas Estimate panel as data') and the breakdown follows in the order the agent will encounter it. It is dense with parenthetical detail and quoted status values, which earns its place but makes for a heavy single block rather than separable sentences.

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, yet the description still usefully pre-frames the shape and the three status values, and it closes the important semantic loop of what complete=false means for the totals. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it is missing; only cross-tool routing is absent.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on arguments.

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 concretely what the tool returns: the priced estimate as structured data (line items with unit, quantities, rates, costs, status, then rollups to base bid). That is well beyond restating the name. It stops short of naming the sibling it differs from (e.g. takeoff_summary for unpriced takeoff vs export_estimate for a file), so the boundary is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a clear do/don't for the output — when complete is false the total is 'priced so far' and the agent should report it to the estimator rather than fill gaps. That is handling guidance, not selection guidance: it never says when to call this versus takeoff_summary, set_pricing, or the export_* siblings, so the agent must infer which summary it wants.

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