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 adds the output dimension ('Benötigte Ladeleistung [kW]'), which is useful since there is no output schema. However, it is silent on how the efficiency parameter (70–100%) affects the calculation and what the result format looks like beyond the unit.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the goal and ending with the result. Minor redundancy: 'benötigte Ladeleistung' in sentence one is rephrased as 'passende kW-Zahl' in sentence two, which adds little. Overall efficient and clear.

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?

The tool has four optional parameters (all with defaults), no output schema, and a simple read-only calculation. The description states the result unit but never explains defaults, what happens when parameters are omitted, or how efficiency factors into the formula. The 100% schema coverage carries much of the load, but for a calculation tool the semantics of the formula remain undisclosed.

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 carries all parameter meaning. The description names two of the four inputs (Akkukapazität, Ladezeit) but omits efficiency and region, which materially affect the calculation. Given complete schema coverage, this baseline of 3 is appropriate, with no added value in description.

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 specific verb and resource: it calculates the required charging power (Ladeleistung) for a wallbox based on battery capacity and desired charge time. This is clearly distinguishable from the opaque bot_XXX siblings. It doesn't differentiate from any named sibling, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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 through the calculation inputs (capacity and desired charge time), but it never states when to choose this tool or when not to. With all siblings being opaque bot_XXX names, the lack of any routing guidance leaves the agent to infer the use case from context alone.

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