Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which matches a read-only recommendation against a fixed catalog. The description adds the notable behavioral fact that the input contract mirrors calculate_bess_system, but says nothing about what is returned (pricing, quantities, panel/battery counts) or whether the calculation must be run first. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and the cross-reference to the sibling is placed last where it belongs. Slight redundancy from stating essentially the same content in Persian and then English, but it is compact overall.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the agent gets no information about the shape of the recommendation (unit counts, model names, pricing) or whether calculate_bess_system must be invoked first. The annotation covers the safety profile, but the output/interaction model with the sibling calculation tool remains underspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with rich Persian descriptions for all 10 parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds one useful cross-reference (same inputs as calculate_bess_system) but no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (suggest) and resource (EnerviaPower products), and enumerates the categories returned: inverter, battery, panel. It also anchors the tool to the calculated system size. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_products, which an agent could easily confuse with a recommendation tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Based on calculated need" and "accepts the same inputs as calculate_bess_system" imply this is used after (or alongside) that calculation, which is useful implied guidance. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no stated relationship to list_products, so the agent must infer the workflow.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.