Start with the reason this software should exist, hire mobile app developers not a list of screens. What kind of user will use this, with what frequency, and what happens today? A vendor who grasps the purpose can propose a cheaper route to it; one who only sees the requirements as given will price the list as written.

Define what is included as concrete flows: what the user does and what the system does in response. Every bit as useful, write down what is out of scope. A written out-of-scope list removes more friction later than almost anything else in the document. Indicate as well which decisions are settled and which are still open — estimators price uncertainty, and pretending everything is fixed helps nobody.

Write down the hard constraints. These include the platforms and laravel vs next.js services involved, the data you already hold and its condition, compliance requirements, expected load, supported browsers or outsource aws development devices and any technology you are committed to. If there is a hard date, explain what drives it: a good team will often resequence the work to protect it, but only if they know it exists.

Say what completion means for .net vs laravel each item. Acceptance criteria do not require any formal notation: a short paragraph describing what must be true when the feature works is sufficient. This single habit compresses acceptance testing dramatically and eliminates the most common source of disputes.

Finally, state what you want in the response. Require a task-level breakdown, the assumptions used, the main risks and a low number and a high number. Treat a wide range as information, not evasion: it tells you where your description is thin. Then clarify that area and ask for a new estimate — the revised figure will be the one worth planning around.