Heizungsanlagen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the domain purpose (heating cost billing per HeizkostenV) but says nothing about result contents, ordering, or what happens for a property without heating systems; with an output schema present, the return shape needs no explanation.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. The only weakness is that it is a fragment without an action verb, leaning on the tool name for the verb.

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 one-parameter read-only listing with a fully documented schema and an output schema, the definition is adequate but thin: it omits result ordering, empty-result behavior, and any explicit link to sibling listings. Nothing is misleading, but an agent gets only the domain rationale, not operational guidance.

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 100% and property_id is documented with a pointer to list_properties, so the single parameter is fully explained by structured data. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier or its expected form, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 identifies the resource precisely ('Die Heizungsanlagen einer Immobilie') and adds domain framing ('für Heizkostenrechnungen nach HeizkostenV'), which lets an agent tell it apart from generic list tools. It is a noun phrase without an explicit verb like 'listet auf', so the action is inferred from the tool name rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied by the parenthetical reference to HeizkostenV billing; there is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of list_meters or other property sub-resource listings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent can guess the context but is given no routing rule.

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