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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—it doesn't state what happens when capacity is insufficient, what units are used, or what the return format is. With annotations present, the description should add context like output semantics or assumptions, but it does not.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded, stating the action and objects immediately. There is zero waste; every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

The tool is simple, but without an output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns or how the comparison is reported. It does not. An agent would be uncertain whether the tool returns a boolean, a numeric margin, or a textual assessment. This is a significant gap for a tool that only has a 2-parameter input and no output schema, making the description incomplete for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It maps 'available boiler capacity' to boiler_power_kw and 'required heating load' to required_power_kw, which adds some meaning. However, it doesn't explain units (though kW is in the names), the expected range, or how the comparison is performed (e.g., threshold or margin). The minimal mapping is insufficient given zero schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('Compare') and a clear resource ('available boiler capacity with required heating load'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like required_heating_power (which computes a value) and heat_loss_total (which calculates losses), making the purpose fairly clear. However, it doesn't specify what 'compare' yields (e.g., a boolean, margin, or recommendation), which slightly reduces clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it should be used when both boiler capacity and required load are already known, nor does it reference any sibling tool. An agent must infer usage from the name and context, which is a notable gap.

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