get_technical_dd_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add value by disclosing that the tool returns indicative ranges and a contact CTA. However, it does not clarify whether calling the tool has side effects such as triggering contact, storing the request, or creating any commitment, leaving meaningful ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and enumerates the key return values with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward calculator-style tool.

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?

The description covers the return envelope well given there is no output schema, and the required parameters are visible in the input schema. Still, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it leaves gaps around how inputs should be interpreted, what 'contact CTA' means behaviorally, and any limitations or exclusions for the 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?

Schema description coverage is only 17%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already names. Terms like gross_area_m2 and timeline_weeks are self-evident in isolation, but the description does not explain how disciplines, geography, or transaction_type affect the estimate, nor does it clarify units or constraints beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Generate an indicative') and a specific resource ('Technical Due Diligence (TDD) fee estimate'), and immediately names the main outputs: preliminary/full fee ranges, turnaround days, and contact CTA. It is clearly differentiated from the sibling calculators and checkers, none of which focus on TDD fee estimation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor on when not to use it. The description does not reference any sibling tool or state whether this is appropriate for early-stage budgeting versus a formal engagement.

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