eu_cost_benchmarking

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are parametric and indicative, explicitly recommends validation against current cost indices, and defines the output shape (ranges and breakdown). It does not discuss underlying data sources or methodology, but the indicative caveat is a meaningful limitation that helps set expectations.

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 two sentences long. The first sentence states the tool's purpose and scope, and the second states the returns and caveat. Every sentence is informative, with no filler or redundancy, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 no output schema and seven parameters, the description provides essential context: the region, the cost drivers, the nature of the output (ranges and breakdown), and a validation caveat. It lacks explicit currency or breakdown details, but overall it is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly for a preliminary cost estimate.

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 has descriptions for only 3 of 7 parameters (43% coverage). The description lists the parameter categories in the first sentence, indicating they are cost factors, but it does not explain each parameter's role, units, or how they affect the estimate. It adds conceptual context but falls short of fully compensating for the low schema coverage.

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 a specific verb context ('Parametric construction cost benchmark') and defines the geographic scope (UK/EU/GCC) and the key cost drivers (country, project type, specification, procurement, programme, BIM). It also specifies the outputs (per-m2 and total cost ranges plus a breakdown), which distinguishes it from sibling tools in structural, BIM, or energy domains.

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 usage for parametric cost benchmarking in UK/EU/GCC, with the closing caveat 'Indicative parametric estimate, validate against current cost indices' clarifying it is for early-stage estimates. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is strong enough for a typical agent to decide when to invoke it.

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