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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the Magnus formula and the assumption that walls are calculated 2 °C below room temperature. It does not describe the output format, but these details add meaningful transparency beyond a simple 'calculates dew point'.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the German purpose followed by the translated/expanded English version. Both parts contribute: the first states the answer to 'should I ventilate?', and the second adds the formula and wall assumption.

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?

For a simple three-parameter calculation tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: inputs are fully documented in the schema, and the calculation logic is stated. It does not specify the return format, but this is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the wall temperature assumption already present in the innen_temp_c parameter description and adds no new parameter-specific meaning.

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 computes the dew point of outside air and answers whether opening a window would make a basement or damp room wetter. This specific outcome distinguishes it from sibling tools like heating load or heat wave preview.

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 a clear use case: deciding if ventilating now would worsen dampness in a basement or damp room. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is distinct enough from siblings.

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