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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful output behavior by listing daily, monthly, and yearly kWh results plus monthly CHF costs, which matters because there is no output schema. It does not explain formula details, rounding, or how region affects the calculation.

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 is two sentences, front-loaded with the calculation purpose and followed by the concrete output list. Every sentence contributes information without repetition or filler.

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?

All inputs are fully described by the schema, the annotations cover safety behavior, and the description compensates for the missing output schema by listing the returned metrics. Minor gaps remain around the exact formula, year/month assumptions, and the region parameter's effect on results.

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 five parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description only names power and operating hours conceptually plus CHF costs, leaving tariff, days_per_month, and region largely implicit. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the parameter-level work.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: calculating a device's kWh consumption from power and operating hours. It is clear what the tool does, but the sibling tools are named only as bot_### and therefore cannot be differentiated from this description.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the calculation purpose.

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