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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false. The description usefully adds the computed result quantities and units, but does not cover precision, validation failures, or other behavioral edge cases.

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 sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose and result summary. There is no filler; every clause conveys calculation scope, input, or output.

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 successfully names the output quantities and units, and the parameter schema is fully documented. It is callable as written, though region conventions and rounding or precision behavior are left implicit.

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 are already documented. The description mirrors the key inputs (Wirkleistung and cos φ) but does not add syntax, region meaning, or other semantics 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 uses a specific verb ('berechnen') and resource ('Blindleistung') and names the inputs (Wirkleistung, cos φ) and outputs (Q, S, φ). The calculation is precisely scoped and distinguishable on its own terms.

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?

Usage is implied by the stated inputs, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives. Adequate for understanding the calculation context, but not for routing between sibling tools.

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