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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the tool returns a compliance score, renovation cost estimate, deadline pressure, and priority measures. However, it does not explain underlying methodology, assumptions, or any side effects, leaving some behavior implicit for a pure assessment tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the action, the target, and the key outputs efficiently, which makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description only names the outputs without defining scales, units, deadline-pressure semantics, or why all seven parameters are required. For a tool with multiple required inputs and non-trivial outputs, the description leaves notable gaps that an agent would need to infer.

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 only 43%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters (year_built, current_epc, has_solar_pv, floor_area_m2). The description lists outputs that imply dependencies on these inputs, but it adds no actual parameter‑level meaning beyond the three fields already described in the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Assess') and a specific resource ('EU EPBD (2024) compliance'), and lists the main outputs. It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools, which focus on other frameworks (e.g., MEES, NIS2, UAE BIM), even though it doesn't explicitly name any alternative.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus other compliance or assessment siblings. The description implies the obvious use case (EU EPBD compliance) but provides no context on exclusions, prerequisites, or when a different tool might be more appropriate.

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