reverse_estimate_preview

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool does not return specific fair range or danger threshold, and notes Japan-only and JPY currency, providing useful behavioral context beyond 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 somewhat lengthy, but front-loaded with key functional info. Each sentence adds value (purpose, constraints, alternatives). Could be slightly more concise, but 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned and what is not, provides usage context, and mentions geographical/currency constraints. Complete for a preview tool with good annotations.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions, but the description adds semantics: 'work' is Japanese and uses partial matching, 'quoted_price' is numeric and in yen. This adds value beyond the schema by clarifying input format and matching logic.

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 magnitude of a contractor's estimate versus average (e.g., +20% above), explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools that return specific ranges or detailed diagnostics. The verb 'reverse_estimate_preview' and resource are well-defined.

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 explicitly states when to use: early-stage planning before a detailed breakdown exists. It also provides alternatives: 'get_price_range' for typical range and 'audit_estimate' for detailed diagnosis, giving clear guidance on tool selection.

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