estimate_installation_cost

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal that cost_per_kw is optional, assume a default value, or clarify what the returned cost includes (e.g., taxes, labor). The behavior beyond the statement is opaque.

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 a single, direct sentence that immediately states the tool's function. There is no redundancy or filler, making it exemplary in conciseness, even though it lacks some contextual details.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the minimal description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not mention what the estimated cost represents, whether the cost_per_kw parameter has a default, or the format of the returned value. More context would complete the picture.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description adds the overall purpose but does not elaborate on how parameters interact, such as the implied multiplication of capacity_kw and cost_per_kw.

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 uses the specific verb 'estimate' and clearly names the resource 'total installation cost' for a solar system. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_capacity or calculate_subsidy, which address other aspects of solar analysis.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or other suitable tools. Given the sibling tools, the agent is left without explicit context for choosing this function.

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