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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds context by stating that the calculation considers efficiency and depth of discharge, which goes beyond the tool name. However, it does not disclose the output unit (e.g., hours) or any underlying assumptions, leaving some behavioral gaps for a calculation tool.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the primary purpose in the first sentence and adding key considerations in the second. There is no redundant or irrelevant 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?

The tool has a well-documented input schema but no output schema and no annotations. The description adequately communicates the core purpose and factors considered, but it omits the output unit and any calculation assumptions. For a simple calculation tool, this is acceptable but not fully complete without explicit return value 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?

The schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description merely paraphrases the main parameters (capacity, consumption, efficiency, depth of discharge) without adding new semantic meaning or relationships beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Berechnet die Akkulaufzeit' (calculates battery runtime), and specifies the key inputs (capacity, average consumption). This distinguishes the tool from sibling calculation tools like calculate_cable_loss or calculate_eirp, which target different quantities.

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 for battery runtime calculations based on capacity and consumption, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or naming of alternatives. The context suggests this tool is for battery runtime estimation, but there is no explicit direction about when to choose it over other tools.

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