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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the calculation method (the formula) and the output dimensions (hourly, daily, monthly costs). However, it does not mention edge cases, default values, or how results are returned, which would add completeness.

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-loaded with the German name and immediately followed by an English explanation. It conveys the essential information without waste, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (a calculator with no nested objects or output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, formula, and reporting periods. It lacks only minor details like return format or potential pitfalls, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds value by explicitly linking the formula terms (watts, hours, price, duty cycle) to the parameters, reinforcing their meaning and how they combine. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 the tool calculates running costs for an air conditioner or any appliance, with the specific formula (watts × hours × price × duty cycle). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like btu_empfehlung or heizleistung_watt, which focus on heating/cooling capacity rather than cost.

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 makes it obvious when to use this tool: whenever you need to estimate electricity cost of an appliance. It mentions the relevant inputs and output time periods (per hour/day/month), though it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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