msio_generate_estimate

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: v0.1.0 is language-only, every tier returns unit_price=null, the AI must not invent dollar amounts, and pricing must be aggregated from the contractor's own past HCP jobs. This is exactly the kind of hidden behavior an agent needs.

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 well-structured with clear USE WHEN, DO NOT USE WHEN, and GOTCHAS sections. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence carries actionable information without fluff or repetition.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover read-only/idempotent safety, the description covers purpose, boundaries, pricing constraints, and directive guidance thoroughly. It is not fully complete because conditions is an input parameter that remains undefined, but overall the agent has enough context to call the tool safely and effectively.

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 no parameter descriptions, and the description only partially compensates. It clarifies service_category through 'same category' and job_description as scope language, but the optional conditions parameter is never explained. This leaves a meaningful gap for an agent trying to understand what values conditions should contain.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: generating a Good/Better/Best three-tier estimate skeleton, and immediately qualifies it as language-only. It differentiates itself from HCP tools and get_pricing_reference by stating that it is not an HCP write and not a historical pricing lookup.

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?

Explicit USE WHEN and DO NOT USE WHEN sections tell the agent exactly when to invoke this tool versus when to avoid it. It names the exclusions (creating an estimate record in HCP, looking up raw historical pricing) and provides a runtime alternative for grounding pricing from past HCP jobs.

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