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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the key modeling assumption (a measured 24 Wh/km consumption baseline) that drives the result, which is useful context, but it never states that this is a pure, side-effect-free calculation, nor how carga_extra_kg perturbs the estimate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the computation and its method with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly names both returned quantities and their units. It is nearly complete for a 4-parameter calculator; the only omission is any word on how extra weight enters the estimate.

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 all four parameters including the defaults (consumption 24, extra weight 0) are already documented in structured form. The description only restates the voltage/Ah baseline and adds no format or units detail beyond the schema.

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 pairs a specific verb (calculate) with specific outputs (usable battery energy in Wh and realistic range in km) and the inputs they derive from (voltage and Ah). It is unambiguous and clearly distinct in kind from the model-listing siblings, though it never references them.

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?

Usage is only implied by the input list: an agent can infer this is a computation tool, but there is no statement of when to call it versus the vehicle/model tools, and no preconditions or exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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