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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description only needs to add domain behavior. It does contribute the standard, the physical meaning and the two output quantities with units (qp, we in kN/m²), which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about the underlying formula, how defaults are applied, or how out-of-range values are handled.

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, zero padding: the first states purpose, standard and application, the second enumerates the return quantities with units. It is front-loaded and every clause carries information.

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 compensates by naming the returned quantities and their units, which is exactly what an agent needs to know. What remains thin is the engineering decision context – the description does not hint at how region and the pressure coefficient interact, though the schema covers the fields themselves.

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% – all three parameters carry titles, ranges and descriptions – so the schema does the explanatory work. The tool description adds no parameter-level guidance at all (e.g. which cpe,10 value suits which surface type, or practical vb,0 ranges per region), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific action and resource pair ('charakteristischen Winddruck und die daraus resultierende Windlast berechnen') and anchors it to the governing standard DIN EN 1991-1-4. It does not differentiate itself from any sibling, which is impossible here since all siblings are opaque identifiers like bot_009/bot_064, so the ceiling is a 4.

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?

'für statische Nachweise' gives an implied application context, so a reader knows roughly when the tool applies. But there is no statement of when not to use it, no prerequisites (e.g. required input data), and no pointer to any alternative among the 37 sibling tools.

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