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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully states the return value ('Leistung [W]'), but it does not explain how the region parameter affects the calculation or results.

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 short sentences, with the core operation front-loaded and the output unit stated immediately. The middle marketing phrase ('Schnell, präzise und kostenlos') is the only waste.

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 3-parameter pure calculator with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it states inputs, the operation and the result unit. The only gap is whether the region selection influences the arithmetic or merely the applicable standard.

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 three parameters, their ranges and the DE/CH enum are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; 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 concrete verb and resource: computing electrical power in watts from current (amperes) and voltage (volts), and names the output unit. It is specific enough to act on, but gives no differentiation from the many bot_* siblings, which are opaque anyway.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternative exists; 'Schnell, präzise und kostenlos' is marketing filler rather than usage context. An agent must infer the use case from the title alone.

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