Get a city renovation cost range

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying the output includes a range, source, date, price basis, and caution, and clarifies it is not a contractor quote. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, the second adds a critical caution. Perfectly front-loaded and 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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by describing the output contents (range, source, date, price basis, caution) and the time frame (2026). It covers the key aspects for an agent to understand what to expect, though it could mention units or methodology reference.

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%, with all parameters described (metro, state, project). The description does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states it returns a 2026 total-project planning range for one city and project type, with source, date, price basis, and caution. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like compare_city_costs or list_markets by specifying it returns a single range.

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 implies when to use (for a planning range for a specific city and project type) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among sibling tools. The caution 'This is not a contractor quote' provides some guidance on expectations.

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