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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful context by enumerating the calculated outputs and formulas, though it does not discuss assumptions or limitations of the roof geometry model.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the output list is efficient, with no filler. The second sentence is dense but still structured around computed quantities and units.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately enumerates the return values, including symbols and units. It is nearly complete for a calculation tool, though it does not clarify edge cases such as using alpha alongside g and h.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters including the region enum. The description adds some context by tying g, h, and alpha to specific calculations, but it does not explain the full input semantics or the role of b and region beyond what the schema provides.

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 calculation task with the exact quantities computed: Dachneigung, wahre Sparrenlänge, and Dachfläche. It also lists the specific outputs and their formulas, so the agent can identify precisely what the tool produces.

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 usage by stating the results are a basis for PV-Belegungsplanung, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is inferable from the calculation context rather than stated as a rule.

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