how_to_read_estimate

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: it returns principles based on 30 years experience, covering overhead ratio, lump-sum entries, and sales tactics. No contradictions; fully transparent.

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?

Description is front-loaded with both Japanese and English versions, clear and structured. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be more compact but still effective.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's purpose and content. It covers what is returned and the basis of the knowledge, leaving no gaps.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate as there are no parameters to describe.

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 returns universal principles for judging construction/renovation estimates, with specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'principles'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing language-agnostic and universal applicability, not tied to specific checks.

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 when evaluating any estimate's honesty, but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternative tools like 'red_flag_check' or 'audit_estimate'. Guidance is clear but lacks direct comparison to siblings.

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