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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It claims returns include COP and SCOP estimate, but fails to mention that the tool operates on temperature inputs, not heat/electric power. The misleading parameter list obscures actual behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded, but its conciseness is detrimental as it omits correct parameter information and includes inaccuracies. A concise but correct description would score higher.

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?

Although an output schema exists (mentioned in context signals), the description's parameter mismatch and lack of detail on actual inputs and outputs leave the tool inadequately specified for correct invocation.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description contradicts the schema by stating inputs are 'heat output kW, electric input kW' while the schema expects outdoor_temp and indoor_temp. This misdirection adds negative value, confusing the agent about parameter purpose.

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 states the tool computes heat pump COP and mentions HVAC efficiency analysis, but it incorrectly lists inputs as 'heat output kW, electric input kW' which do not match the input schema (outdoor_temp, indoor_temp). This mismatch undermines clarity about what the tool actually does.

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 suggests using the tool for HVAC efficiency analysis and references list_bundles for related calculators, offering some usage context. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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