energy_location_profile

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and safe behavior. The description adds useful context: it aggregates multiple parallel API calls, typical runtime <5s, and data source (GeoAdmin/BFE), which goes beyond annotation metadata.

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 well-structured with a concise opening sentence followed by use_case, important_notes, and example tags. Each element serves a distinct purpose, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool's aggregation complexity, the description covers purpose, use cases, performance characteristics, and an example. An output schema exists to document return values, so the description does not need to explain that. It is complete for effective selection and invocation.

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?

The description does not mention parameters at all. Although the nested schema documents lat/lon/radius_m, the top-level schema coverage is 0% per context signals, and the description fails to compensate by explaining parameter usage or semantics.

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 the tool creates a complete energy profile for a location by aggregating five BFE layers. It uses a specific verb ('Erstellt') and resource ('Energieprofil'), and the distinction from sibling tools (which target individual layers) is evident.

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 <use_case> tag explicitly states when to use it (reports, location decisions, demos) and emphasizes a single-call overview, which contrasts with the sibling finder tools. However, it does not name alternative tools explicitly, only implies them.

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