Preview Reverse Estimate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral clarity by explicitly listing what the tool does NOT return (min/avg/max, danger threshold), which informs the user of limited output without contradicting 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 efficiently packed: it states functionality, exclusions, use case, alternatives, and locale in two compact bilingual versions. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no filler or redundancy beyond the intentional language duplication.

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 has only 2 parameters, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, what it omits, when to use it, and with which sibling tools to replace it. This is fully complete for an AI agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, so both parameters are already documented with Japanese descriptions. The description adds context about the output relation to quoted_price but does not introduce new parameter-level details; baseline 3 applies.

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 only the direction and approximate magnitude of deviation (e.g., +20% above) relative to the average. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_price_range and audit_estimate, making its scope unambiguous.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use context: early-stage renovation planning before a detailed breakdown exists. It also names alternatives for other needs (get_price_range for a typical range, audit_estimate for detailed diagnosis) and adds geographic/currency scope (Japan only, JPY).

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