get_technical_dd_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the indicative/non-binding nature of the estimate and specifies the return structure: preliminary and full fee ranges, turnaround days, and a contact CTA. This goes beyond simply restating the tool name, though it does not address authentication or other potential side effects.

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: the first states the purpose, the second lists the outputs. Every word earns its place, and the structure front-loads the core functionality.

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 tool requires six parameters, has no output schema, and lacks any annotation guidance. The description provides only a high-level summary and does not explain parameter meanings, how inputs affect the quote, or what 'preliminary and full DD fee ranges' signify in practice. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with correct inputs.

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% (only building_type has a description listing allowed values). The tool description mentions none of the six required parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the raw schema. With such low coverage, the description was expected to compensate but fails completely.

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: 'Generate an indicative Technical Due Diligence (TDD) fee estimate.' It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings by focusing on fee quotation rather than technical checks, and enumerates exact return items (fee ranges, turnaround days, contact CTA).

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 tool's intended use is implied by its name and description—when a TDD fee estimate is needed—but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, nor are alternatives named. The context is clear enough for a unique tool, but the description lacks direct usage boundaries.

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