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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context of its own, and its one behavioral claim is the unresolved template artifact 'Returns: {note}', which conveys nothing. No contradiction with annotations, but no added value either.

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?

Two short sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose, so size is fine. However, the '{note}' placeholder is an unrendered template fragment that does not earn its place, and the list_bundles pointer is tangential to calling this tool.

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?

One fully documented required parameter, a complete annotation set, and an output schema (so return values need not be explained). The description covers what an agent needs to select and invoke it; the only blemishes are the broken '{note}' fragment and the absence of any DPE domain framing.

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% for the single parameter (kwh_m2_year), so the schema fully documents units and meaning. The description's phrase 'primary energy consumption' just restates that, adding no thresholds (e.g. DPE class boundaries) or edge-case semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Determine French DPE energy class') plus the driving input (primary energy consumption), which is genuinely distinct from siblings like calculate_malus_ecologique or calculate_energy_physics. It does not name or contrast a particular sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 only guidance is 'See list_bundles for related "immobilier" calculators', which is a navigation pointer, not a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of prerequisites, input scope, or when a different calculator would be the right choice.

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