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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'Returns: {note}' but does not elaborate on what the note contains or any other side effects. For a pure calculation tool, this is minimally adequate but lacks detail about the return structure, even though an output schema exists.

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 at two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and provides a helpful cross-reference to related tools. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema), the description is nearly complete. It specifies the input, output, and related tools. Only minor detail about the output format is missing, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 a clear description for the single parameter 'kwh_m2_year' as 'Primary energy consumption in kWh/m2/year', achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Determine French DPE energy class from primary energy consumption.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinctly identifies the tool's purpose. It also differentiates itself from siblings by referencing 'list_bundles for related 'immobilier' calculators,' which is helpful given the large number of sibling tools.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: when you have primary energy consumption in kWh/m²/year. It also signals that the output is a 'note' and points to the related bundle for more calculators. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or provide detailed alternatives, the context is clear enough for a simple calculator tool.

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