renovation_estimate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the output is a range (never a single invented number), mentions age-based risk flags for 1978-or-older builds, and discloses that core arguments are optional to avoid validation crashes, turning missing-input refusals into payloads. This is substantial transparency for a tool with no 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 two paragraphs with a crisp first sentence summarizing the tool. The second paragraph adds essential detail on scaling and the optional argument design. There is no fluff, but the parenthetical about optional arguments is a minor aside. Overall, it is well-structured and concise.

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 9 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description provides a good high-level overview but lacks details on parameter validation, acceptable values, output format, and error handling beyond the optional argument note. An agent would understand the general purpose but may not know all specifics needed for correct invocation.

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. It only mentions unit size and finish tier as scaling factors and year_built implicitly via age risk. It does not explain the meaning or usage of market, scope_level, property_class, bedrooms, bathrooms, or unit_sqft. The description adds minimal value over the parameter names themselves, leaving much to inference.

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's purpose: producing per-unit renovation cost ranges with line items and age-based risk flags, sourced from the costmodel KB. It specifies the resource (renovation cost estimates) and the verb (produces ranges). This distinguishes it from siblings like renovation_roi (ROI calculations) and generate_sow (statements of work) by the explicit mention of cost ranges and line items.

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 explains how the tool works and what it outputs but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It implies usage when a renovation cost estimate is needed, but no exclusions or alternative selection criteria are given. The note about ranges instead of single numbers gives some behavioral context but not usage guidance.

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