audit_estimate

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations, including return JSON structure (verdict, level, fair_range, etc.), error handling (did_you_mean, unit_mismatch), data source (souba-db), and domain constraints (Japan, JPY). 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?

The description is bilingual and fairly long, but well-structured with clear sections for purpose, return, error cases, and alternatives. Every sentence contributes value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 tool's complexity (auditing with ranges, multiple return fields, error cases), the description is comprehensive. It covers inputs, outputs, error handling, alternatives, data source, and domain restrictions. No output schema exists, so the detailed return description compensates completely.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds extra context: work should be specific including material/grade, and mentions unit_mismatch for per-unit pricing. This adds value beyond the schema but is not entirely new, hence 4.

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 the tool's purpose: auditing whether a contractor's quoted price is fair by comparing against HORIZON SHIELD fair-price ranges. It specifies the verb 'audit' and the resource 'fair-price ranges'. It also distinguishes from siblings by indicating when to use alternative tools like get_price_range and verify_fair_price.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Use when the user already has a specific quoted amount.' It also specifies when not to use it: 'For the typical range only use get_price_range; for a signed verifiable attestation use verify_fair_price.' It also notes 'Japan only, JPY'.

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