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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: it discloses the return shape (a verdict of fits/tight/does-not-fit, amps, and a plain-language explanation), which matters since no output schema exists. It omits any note on permissions, input assumptions, or limits on interpretation of the verdict.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then trigger conditions, then return values. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With four simple parameters at full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies exactly what the structured fields do not: when to invoke the tool and what the result looks like. An agent has everything needed to select and call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (main_breaker_amps, charger_amps, appliances, square_footage) are already documented with examples and ranges. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as units, defaults, or the effect of omitting optional appliances, so the schema does all the work — the baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — checking a home's electrical panel capacity for an EV charger — and the scope is unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_voltage_drop or recommend_charger_setup, since it produces a capacity verdict rather than a drop calculation or a setup plan.

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 explicit trigger conditions: a user asking whether a panel or breaker box can handle an EV charger, or whether a panel upgrade or load management is needed. It does not, however, name the sibling tools or state when this tool should NOT be used instead of them, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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