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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context through the calculation rule and the exact set of returned values, including units and the special case 0 = over 125 A.

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?

The description front-loads the purpose and selection rule, then lists the result values without filler. It is dense and somewhat run-on, but the enumerations are relevant and earn their place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately supplies the returned result fields and their units. Combined with the fully documented input schema and safety annotations, an agent has enough context to invoke this read-only calculator correctly.

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%, so all four inputs (region, cos φ, leistung_watt, spannung_volt) are fully documented in the schema. The description discusses domain quantities but does not add input-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 calculation/selection task for Leitungsschutzschalter using the rule I_B ≤ I_n ≤ I_z, and enumerates the resulting values. The verb and resource are clear, though the opaque sibling names provide no basis for explicit differentiation.

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?

The description implies the tool is for selecting a circuit breaker by formula, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. Sibling tools are not mentioned at all.

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