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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping to supplied/exhausted air, but it does not disclose assumptions, calculation formula, or whether the estimate is instantaneous vs. time-averaged.

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 focused sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the title. It front-loads the main action and object, earning every word.

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?

For a simple two-parameter calculator, the description gives the core intent, but the lack of an output schema means the returned quantity/unit is not specified. It also does not explain how this estimate relates to total, specific, or transmission heat loss, leaving some contextual ambiguity.

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 carries the burden for parameter meaning, but it does not explain airflow_m3_h or delta_t_k. The names are somewhat self-explanatory (airflow in m3/h, temperature difference in K), yet no units, roles, or relationships are made explicit.

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 verb ('Estimate') and a specific resource ('heat loss caused by supplied or exhausted air'), which clearly identifies a ventilation-related calculation. It distinguishes from transmission_heat_loss by naming the mechanism, though it never explicitly mentions the sibling tools or contrasts with them.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over siblings like transmission_heat_loss or heat_loss_total. The description gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended context, so an agent must infer usage solely from the name and one-line description.

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