Begin with the reason this software should exist, not a feature list. What kind of user will use it day to day, how often, and what does the process look like without it? An experienced team who understands the goal will suggest an alternative that costs less; one who only sees a feature list prices your assumptions along with the work.
Describe the scope as user stories or scenarios: what the user does and what the system does in response. Just as important, state explicitly what is out of scope. A written out-of-scope list prevents more argument later than almost anything else in the document. Also mark which decisions are settled and hire ai automation developers which are still under discussion — estimators price uncertainty, and pretending everything is fixed helps nobody.
Set out your constraints. This means existing systems the software has to talk to, the data you have and where it lives, security and compliance rules, traffic expectations, target platforms and any technology you are committed to. If a deadline is real, say what depends on it: a good team will often rearrange the plan to protect it outsourcing eastern europe, but not if the date is a secret.
Write down what completion means for each item. Testable acceptance criteria do not require formal language: a short list describing what a user should be able to do is enough. This one section compresses acceptance testing by a surprising margin and closes off the most common source of disputes.
Finally, state what you want in the response. Request a task-level breakdown, a written list of assumptions, the main risks and an optimistic and livewire vs react a pessimistic figure. Read a wide range as a signal about the brief: it tells you exactly which requirement is unclear. Then clarify that area and ask ecommerce solution for edtech industry a new estimate — the next version will be far closer to reality.