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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the calculation formula and the two-part output (required length and standard size), which is useful. However, it does not mention edge cases, input range limits, or potential error behavior, which is a gap given the lack of annotation context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes the formula and scope without redundancy. Every clause contributes useful information, making it highly efficient.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return concept: required length plus a fitting standard size. It also includes the formula and supported window types. Missing exact return format (e.g., units or combined output structure) but acceptable for a simple calculation tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking width and height to the perimeter formula, reinforcing their meaning as sash measurements. It also covers the fenstertyp parameter by stating the supported window types, which aligns with the enum values.

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 the required window-seal length for a portable AC from sash dimensions, with the formula (perimeter = 2×(width+height)), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like btu_empfehlung or klimaanlage_stromkosten. It also mentions it returns an off-the-shelf size, further defining its purpose.

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 when to use the tool: when needing the seal length for a portable AC given window sash measurements. It also specifies covered window types (tilt-and-turn and roof windows), providing scope guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the siblings are clearly different domains.

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