estimate_from_deal

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it partially does: it discloses error behavior ('problem dict' with error_type on the not_implemented guard) and the index-aligned return contract. It never states whether the operation mutates state or what permissions/inputs it needs, leaving the safety profile unaddressed.

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 transformation is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good, but the trailing 'slice B PR 3' release note adds noise an agent cannot use. Size is otherwise reasonable.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description usefully spells out the {estimates, renovation_programs} return shape and the index-aligned mapping. It is still incomplete on the input side (opaque deal_dict) and on side effects, so it is adequate but not fully self-contained.

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% for both parameters, and the description only gestures at 'deal + scenarios' and index alignment with scenarios_list. deal_dict is an opaque additionalProperties object whose relevant fields are never explained, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a concrete pipeline (deal + scenarios → per-scenario ScopeRequests → estimates → renovation_program dicts), which is more specific than a bare restatement of the name. However, it leans on internal jargon ('slice B PR 3', 'project back') and never distinguishes itself from siblings like estimate, estimate_scope, or estimate_full_property, so an agent cannot easily route between 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling estimators. The only contextual remark ('Per-type dispatch lands in slice B PR 3') is a development roadmap note, not actionable usage direction.

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