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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description adds real value beyond that: it names the standards applied, the conversion factor f, and precisely enumerates the four returned quantities including which one is governing ('maßgebend'), compensating for the absent output schema.

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?

One dense sentence stating purpose and standards, followed by a bullet-style enumeration of the returned values. Front-loaded, zero filler, and the output list is load-bearing given no output schema.

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 fully-defaulted, no-required-parameter calculator, the description covers purpose, standards, installation type and all returned values. Minor gaps remain around the AC configuration (single-phase vs three-phase) implied by the 230 V default, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 every parameter including the region enum and the f factor semantics is already documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema 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 precise verb+resource: computes the minimum copper conductor cross-section from voltage drop and current-carrying capacity, citing the governing standards and installation type B2. The scope is unambiguous, but with sibling names being opaque IDs it offers no differentiation from the other bot_* calculators.

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 scope constraints (copper only, Verlegeart B2, DE/CH regime via the region parameter) imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer a different tool or what the tool does not cover (e.g. aluminium, other installation types).

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