prepare_renovation_program_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the exact return structure (renovation_program, roi_result, ready_to_underwrite) and the failure behavior including the path_to_pass guidance in roi_result. It stops short of stating side effects or auth/compute-only nature, but failure-mode and output disclosure is genuinely informative.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact pipeline summary, a bulleted return block, the ROI-failure behavior, and an args list. Slightly long but every section adds distinct value; the only minor redundancy is restating the pipeline flow in prose after the purpose line.

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 15-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is substantively complete: it covers purpose, returns, failure path, and most argument semantics. Remaining gaps (no side-effect safety statement, no note on whether it writes files) are minor given the compute-style pipeline it describes.

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, and it largely does: it explains that unit_sqft drives the size category, gives the 'YYYY-MM' format for start_month, enumerates valid values for scope_level, finish_tier, property_class and market, notes year_built triggers risk flags, and gives defaults for downtime_days and threshold_pct. The few undocumented params (bedrooms, rent figures) are self-evident, though this stops short of a full 5.

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 specific verbs and resources: estimates unit cost, validates ROI, and produces an underwriting-ready renovation program. The three-stage pipeline (estimate → ROI gate → bridge dict) is concrete. However, it never names or contrasts with siblings like check_renovation_roi or estimate_scope, so an agent must infer this is the composite wrapper rather than the single-purpose tools.

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 phrase 'Runs the full pipeline' implies this is the end-to-end option versus the granular siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The ROI-failure branch is described, but the choice against check_renovation_roi + estimate_scope is left to inference.

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