check_cold_climate_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output in detail but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. Given the analysis nature, it implies safety, but lacks explicit behavioral disclosure.

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 structured with bullet points and includes necessary detail. It is not overly verbose, but could be slightly more concise. The front-loading with the core purpose is effective.

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?

Given the output schema exists and explains return values, the description adequately covers the tool's function, inputs, and analysis steps. It is comprehensive for a complex verification tool, leaving no critical gaps.

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% for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it lists what is analyzed but does not elaborate on parameter specifics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('heat pump performance at design temperature') and clearly lists what it analyzes and determines. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'calculate_heat_pump_sizing' by focusing on cold-climate performance and backup heat requirements.

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 explicitly states 'Critical for cold-climate installations to ensure adequate heating on coldest days,' which provides clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, missing an opportunity for full guidance.

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