Open with the problem you are solving, not your preferred technology. What kind of user will use the system, with what frequency, and what happens today? An experienced team who grasps the purpose will suggest an alternative that costs less; someone handed only the requirements as given prices your assumptions along with the work.

Describe the scope as short scenarios: a walk through each important path. Equally important, write down what you are not building. A written out-of-scope list saves more argument during acceptance than the rest of the brief combined. Mark too laravel vs node js which is better items are decided and which may still change — estimators price uncertainty, and hiding it helps no one.

Set out your constraints. The list covers the platforms and services involved, existing databases and their quality, compliance requirements, typescript web framework user volumes, which devices matter and infrastructure that is already decided. If there is a hard date, say why: a team is usually able to resequence the work to hit it, but not if the date is a secret.

Say what done means for the important items. Testable acceptance criteria do not require special syntax: a short list stating the expected behaviour is enough. That one addition compresses the review at the end by a surprising margin and removes the most common source of disputes.

Finally, say what you expect back. Request an itemised estimate, the assumptions behind each number, whatever the team considers risky and an optimistic and a pessimistic figure. Read a wide range as useful information rather than evasion: it usually points to the part of the brief that needs work. At that point tighten that section and ask for a new estimate — the second estimate will be far closer to reality.