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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds value by naming the two output quantities (s and sd in kN/m²), which the annotation set cannot express. However, it omits the actual relations (s = µ1·Ce·sk, sd = γQ·s) and says nothing about defaults being applied when parameters are omitted — notable since all five parameters are optional.

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: purpose, audience/type, then outputs. The result list is front-loaded where it matters and there is no filler. Slightly weakened by the vague marketing phrase 'Einfacher Online-Rechner', which occupies space without informing an agent.

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 absorbs the return-value burden by listing s and sd. But it leaves a real gap: the schema offers region DE/CH (DIN vs NIN/SIA) while the description only cites ÖNORM EN 1991-1-3, so an agent cannot tell which standard applies for CH. Default behavior for the five optional parameters is also unaddressed.

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 of 3 applies; the schema already documents every parameter with units and ranges. The description contributes no additional semantics about how sk_boden, formbeiwert_basis, expositionsbeiwert and teilsicherheitsbeiwert combine, nor how 'region' changes the applicable code.

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 ('Berechnen Sie die Schneelast auf Dächern') plus the governing standard (ÖNORM EN 1991-1-3) and the two results produced. An agent knows exactly what computation this performs. It cannot differentiate from siblings, but the sibling names (bot_009 … bot_065) are opaque tokens that carry no semantics, so nothing more is achievable here.

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 standard reference and the phrase 'Einfacher Online-Rechner' imply the use case (quick characteristic/design snow load per EN 1991-1-3), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Nothing tells the agent whether this supersedes or complements other structural tools in the sibling set.

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