eed_datacentre_pack

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 states the tool determines scope and computes KPIs, implying a read-only calculation. The note 'the regulation mandates reporting, not target values' adds important context about what the tool does NOT do (evaluate performance against targets). This is meaningful behavioral transparency beyond mere 'calculates'.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's name and regulatory basis. Every sentence adds value: scope determination, KPI computation, and the crucial caveat about target values. No filler or repetition of schema 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?

For a calculation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it computes and the regulatory context. It lacks an explicit statement of return format, but the phrase 'reporting pack' implies a structured result set. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is sufficiently complete, though not perfect.

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?

While the schema already describes each parameter individually, the description ties parameters to the KPIs (e.g., water_input_m3 → WUE, reused_heat_kwh → ERF, renewable_energy_kwh → REF) and highlights the scope threshold (it_power_kw >= 500 kW). This adds integrative meaning over the schema's isolated descriptions, more than the baseline 3.

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's function: it determines reporting scope for EU EED data centres and computes specific KPIs (PUE, WUE, ERF, REF). It names the exact regulation and distinguishes itself from simpler sibling tools like calculate_pue by covering a broader, regulation-specific pack.

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 provides clear context for when to use: for EU EED data-centre reporting, with a scope threshold (IT power >= 500 kW). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the regulatory and threshold context makes the intended use obvious, so it earns a 4 rather than a 3.

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