estimate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses internal behaviors that affect the output (sqft drives size category thresholds, bathrooms act as a cost multiplier, year_built triggers risk flags), but says nothing about permissions, determinism, failure modes, or the shape of the returned line-item breakdown beyond naming it.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded, followed by a clean arg list where each entry earns its place. It is slightly long, but the length is justified by nine undocumented parameters rather than padding.

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 nine-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the input surface thoroughly. The remaining gap is decision support: it does not help an agent choose this tool over the many similarly named sibling estimators, nor does it describe the returned breakdown's contents.

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 0%, so the description must compensate entirely, and it does: every one of the nine parameters is documented with added meaning, including size-category thresholds, the bathroom multiplier, cost ranges per scope_level, and concrete finish_tier examples. The schema alone provides only bare titles, so this is genuinely additive.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Estimate per-unit renovation cost with line-item breakdown.' The 'per-unit' qualifier meaningfully scopes it against the sibling estimate_full_property. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like estimate_scope or estimate_from_deal, so an agent has no basis for choosing among them.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'per-unit' suggests this is the single-unit variant versus a full-property or deal-level estimate. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative, leaving routing among the ten sibling estimators to inference.

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