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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, and the description is consistent, describing a read-only calculation. It adds behavioral context: the tool is free but limited use (Gratuito (uso limitado)), and it explains how face exposure affects heating. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a dense paragraph that efficiently packs purpose and parameter guidance. It uses backticks for parameter names and lists allowed values. While mostly concise, it could be better organized (e.g., bullet points) and is slightly long but justified given parameter count.

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 15 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the calculation purpose and many parameters, but it does not describe the return value (e.g., temperature rise, pass/fail). This omission leaves the agent unsure of what the tool returns, lacking complete contextual information.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining many parameters: perda_W, dimensions, face options, regime (BT/MT), tipo_instalacao, limite_equip_C, temp_ambiente_C, etc. However, it does not explain 'ventilado', 'n_particoes', or 'api_key', leaving some gaps.

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 clearly states it calculates the internal air temperature rise of a low-voltage panel per IEC 60890 and checks acceptance per IEC 61439-1. It specifies the main parameter (perda_W) and dimensions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like calcular_curto_circuito or dimensionar_cabo, which handle different electrical calculations.

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 provides clear context on when to use: for temperature rise calculation in BT panels. It explains face exposure options (e.g., coberta means against wall, heats more) and installation type range 1–5, guiding parameter selection. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention specific alternatives, though siblings are distinct.

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