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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the calculation logic—watts, hours, price, and compressor duty cycle—and the time periods covered. It does not mention output formatting or edge cases, but for a simple calculator the formula and period breakdown provide adequate transparency.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences—with the German purpose front-loaded and the English expansion immediately after. Every phrase adds value: the formula, the scope, and the output periods. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 fully documented schema parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what the tool does, the formula, and the output units/periods. There is no significant missing information that would prevent an agent from selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 each parameter is already documented with units and defaults. The description adds semantic value by showing how the parameters combine in the formula (watts × hours × price × duty cycle), which clarifies the relationship between them beyond the individual schema descriptions.

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 ('Stromkosten eines Klimageräts'/'Running cost of an air conditioner'), provides the formula (watts × hours × electricity price × compressor duty cycle), and specifies the output question (per hour/day/month). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like btu_empfehlung or heizleistung_watt, which address sizing or heating power 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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need to know what it costs to run an appliance, with explicit output periods (per hour, day, month). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough from sibling tools that usage context is clear.

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