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 is covered; the description then adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing exactly which derived values are returned (k_In, I_n2,max, ΔI_k, utilization %, recommended I_n1). For a stateless calculation tool this is solid added value beyond the annotations.

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: the first front-loads the purpose, the second lists outputs. Efficient, though the output enumeration is dense and formula-heavy enough that it flirts with over-packing a single sentence.

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 correctly carries the return-value burden and enumerates the result quantities with units and constraints. Combined with full schema coverage of inputs and clear annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only explicit when-to-use framing 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 the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by supplying the governing formula and constraint (k_In = I_n1/I_n2, required ≥ 1,6; I_n1 ≥ 1,6·I_n2), which explains the relationship between in_vor and in_nach rather than just restating the fields. It does not explicitly map every named concept to its parameter name, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 ('Selektivität ... prüfen') and a specific resource pair (SLS-Schalter/Vorsicherung vs. nachgeordneter LS-Schalter), and enumerates the computed quantities. An agent immediately knows this is a selectivity-check calculation, not a generic electrical helper. Siblings are opaque codes so name-based differentiation is impossible, but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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 the usage context (checking selectivity between two protection devices) but never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives, prerequisites (e.g. needing manufacturer table data for I_s), or exclusions. Guidance is inferable from the purpose, not explicit.

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