assess_epbd_score

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It does mention key outputs and notes that the renovation cost is an estimate, which adds some transparency. However, it does not explain methodology, assumptions, limitations, or how 'deadline pressure' is calculated, leaving room for misinterpretation.

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 that efficiently communicates the core purpose and main results. Every phrase adds value without unnecessary padding.

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 tool with 7 required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the compliance score means, the scale of the deadline pressure, how measures are prioritized, or any limitations of the assessment. Sibling tools suggest alternative compliance contexts, and the description fails to position EPBD against them.

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 adds no parameter-specific meaning. It does not mention how inputs like building_type, year_built, current_epc, or has_solar_pv affect the assessment, leaving the agent to rely on minimal schema hints.

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 assesses EU EPBD (2024) compliance, which is a specific regulation and action. It also lists concrete outputs (compliance score, renovation cost estimate, deadline pressure, priority retrofit measures), distinguishing it from sibling tools like MEES checker or UK planning checker.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, such as EU location or building type, nor does it mention when to prefer other compliance assessment tools among the siblings.

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