export_estimate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses the exact output shape, that values are numeric-only with unentered rates as empty cells rather than 0, that an Unpriced tab appears conditionally, and the default file location. It stops short of stating prerequisites (e.g. that pricing must have been set via set_pricing) or failure behavior when no estimate exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and artifact, then structured as tab-by-tab content, formatting rules, and default path. Dense but nearly every clause adds usable detail; the 'canvas Estimate panel's Excel button' framing is helpful context rather than filler, though the sentence count pushes toward the long side.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter export tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, this covers output layout, edge cases (unpriced tab, empty cells), file placement, and the user-facing caveat about partial totals. An agent can call it correctly without consulting anything else.

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 schema already explains path, overwrite, company_name and project_name in detail. The description restates the default path and tab labeling but adds no semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 a concrete verb and artifact: writes the priced estimate as an Excel workbook, and enumerates the tab structure (Estimate, Materials, Unpriced). This cleanly distinguishes it from export_takeoff, export_proposal, export_report and export_marked_pdf, which all produce different outputs.

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 'canvas Estimate panel's Excel button' analogy implies when it is the right action, and the closing line gives post-call guidance about warning users of partially-priced totals. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over siblings like export_proposal or export_report, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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