Open with the reason this software development company in germany should exist, not a feature list. Who will use the system, how ai changes software development many times a day, and what does the process look like without it? An experienced team who understands the goal can propose an alternative that costs less; one who only sees the requirements as given can only price exactly what you asked for.
Define what is included as concrete flows: who does what, and what happens next. Just as important, list what is out of scope. An explicit list of exclusions removes more disagreement at delivery time than any other single page. Mark too which decisions are settled and which are still open — the difference changes the price, and laravel vs symfony comparison pretending everything is fixed helps nobody.
Write down the hard constraints. The list covers the platforms and services involved, the data you already hold and its condition, regulatory obligations, traffic expectations, which devices matter and infrastructure that is already decided. If there is a hard date, say what depends on it: an hire experienced node.js programmer team is usually able to cut the right scope to meet it, but only if they know it exists.
Say what completion means for each item. Acceptance criteria do not need special syntax: a plain-language note stating what must be true when the feature works will do. This one section compresses the review at the end by a surprising margin and closes off most late-stage disagreement.
One last thing, state what you want in the response. Ask for a task-level breakdown, the assumptions used, the risks the team sees and an optimistic and a pessimistic figure. Read a wide range as information, not evasion: it usually points to where your description is thin. Then clarify that area and ask for a new estimate — the next version is far closer to reality.