Get Estimate Reading Guide

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

Annotations already indicate it is a read-only, non-destructive tool. The description adds beyond that by explaining exactly the kind of knowledge it returns and that it is language-agnostic and based on field experience. No hidden side-effects or data mutations are implied.

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 concise and front-loaded: it immediately says what the tool returns, then gives concrete examples. The bilingual repetition is acceptable but adds length; still, it remains tight and information-dense.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with a rich description and an output schema, the description is complete: it names the principles, clarifies geographic/language scope, and signals the practical purpose. No important operational detail appears missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter coverage is trivially 100%. The description supplies the needed semantic content by focusing entirely on what the returned guide contains, which is the right compensation for a parameterless tool.

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?

Description states a clear, specific action: it returns universal principles for judging construction/renovation estimates, and enumerates the content (overhead ratio, lump-sum entries, sales tactics). This strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_estimate or verify_fair_price, which are more specific audit/verification tools.

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?

Uses explicit scope language ('universal principles', 'for judging ANY estimate', 'works outside Japan'), giving the agent clear context for when to invoke this general guide. It does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives, but the general-purpose positioning is clear enough for a zero-parameter informational tool.

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