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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds meaningful context by calling the result 'Indicative' and by specifying the output dimensions. However, it does not disclose assumptions, data sources, accuracy limits, or the exact return format.

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 compact: one substantive sentence followed by the single caveat 'Indicative.' It front-loads the core behavior and output without repeating schema field descriptions or adding filler.

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 non-destructive estimation tool, this is sufficient: it states the analytic inputs, the high-level output structure, and the indicative nature, while the schema documents all parameters. It would benefit from explicit units or a return-value shape, but nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly naming current EPC, floor area, and heating type as the drivers of the roadmap, implying that other fields are contextual labels rather than calculation inputs.

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 identifies the deliverable—a 3-phase renovation roadmap with cost ranges, energy savings, and EPC trajectory—and the EPBD framing helps distinguish it from the sibling tools. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'generates' or 'calculates', but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The EPBD-style, staged-renovation framing and the word 'Indicative' imply the intended scenario of rough renovation planning, but the agent must infer this from context.

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