Start with the reason this software should exist, not a feature list. What kind of user will use the system, how often, and what does the process look like without it? An estimator who knows what you are trying to achieve can propose a simpler way to reach it; someone handed only the requirements as given prices the list as written.

Set out the scope as concrete flows: a walk through each important path. Just as important, state explicitly what is out of scope. An explicit exclusion list prevents more friction during acceptance than any other single page. Also mark which items are decided and which may still change — honest teams price those differently, and pretending everything is fixed only hurts you.

Set out your constraints. These include the platforms and python consulting services involved, existing databases and their quality, regulatory obligations, expected load, supported browsers or devices and any technology you are committed to. Where a date is genuinely fixed, hire monorepo programmer say why: a team is usually able to cut the right scope to protect it, provided they hear about it early.

Write down what done means for each item. Clear acceptance criteria do not need any formal notation: a plain-language note describing what must be true when the feature works is enough. This single habit reduces the sign-off process dramatically and removes most late-stage disagreement.

One last thing, state what you want in the response. Ask for a breakdown by feature or module, the assumptions behind each number, the main risks and a low number and a high number. Read a wide range as a signal about the brief: it usually points to where your description is thin. From there tighten that section and ask again — the next version will be the one worth planning around.