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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the calculation basis (60/80/100 W/m²) and the inclusion of running cost, but it does not mention potential assumptions (e.g., standard room height) or limitations of the estimate. This is moderate transparency for a calculator 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 compact, front-loading the core purpose, and includes useful detail in two sentences. The bilingual repetition (German and English) introduces slight redundancy but does not detract significantly from conciseness.

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 calculator with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential inputs, the calculation basis, and the output components (watts and running cost). It omits fine details like output formatting or caveats, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters, including the W/m² mapping for the enum. The description adds little beyond restating that floor area and insulation are inputs, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema's high coverage.

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 provides required heating power in watts for a room based on floor area and insulation standard. It also specifies the inclusion of running cost per full-load hour, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like btu_empfehlung that likely focus on BTU units.

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 when a user needs heating power in watts with floor area and insulation data, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., btu_empfehlung) or any exclusions. No direct guidance or alternative references are provided.

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