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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description needn't restate safety. It adds that results are tied to "the real climate of the place", which signals externally-sourced/geo-dependent computation rather than a stored record. It does not say whether results are deterministic, cached, or how location precision affects the answer.

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 capability sentence is front-loaded and the output list is packed economically; the parameter glosses and the closing directive are short and earn their place. The metric list is dense, but no sentence is filler.

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, listing the returned metrics is genuinely necessary and it does so. However, units per metric (water volume, energy basis, hours) are unstated and location semantics are undefined, which matters for a numeric simulation tool whose whole value is trustworthy figures.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and only partly delivers: it_mw is defined (IT load in MW) and ai is glossed (high-density AI halls), which are the two non-obvious inputs. lat and lng receive no explanation of acceptable range or granularity, leaving two of four parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

Names a specific resource (data center campus energy study) and enumerates the computed quantities: PUE, facility energy, cooling-mode hours, water use, peak cooling, waste heat, roof PV. An agent can tell this apart from wai_building_energy by the data-center framing. It stops short of explicitly contrasting the two, so not a 5.

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?

"Answer with the returned numbers, not an estimate made before the call" gives a real usage directive: route quantitative data center energy questions here rather than reasoning them out. But there is no explicit statement of alternatives (e.g. when to prefer wai_building_energy) or preconditions such as needing coordinates near the campus.

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