digital_renovation_passport

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds 'Indicative' as a caveat about accuracy, but does not detail other traits such as whether outputs are estimates, how to interpret cost ranges, or potential variability. It gives a clear overview of what is produced but lacks deeper limitations or operational context.

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, compact sentence that immediately communicates the core purpose and key output components. No repetitive or extraneous text, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description communicates the main deliverables (roadmap phases, cost ranges, energy savings, EPC trajectory) but does not describe the return format or structure, and does not explain optional parameters like era, address, or building_type. Given the tool's moderate complexity and no output schema, more detail on the resulting structure would improve completeness.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'from current EPC, floor area and heating type', which reinforces the required inputs but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify units, enums, or any additional parametric detail.

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 tool as a staged digital renovation passport under EPBD-style guidelines, specifying a 3-phase roadmap with cost ranges, energy savings, and EPC trajectory. This is a specific and distinct function compared to sibling tools like mees_checker or heatpump_heatloss.

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 implies use for generating renovation roadmaps based on EPC, floor area, and heating, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or list exclusion criteria. Sibling tools are many, and no direct comparison is made, leaving usage somewhat implicit.

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