estimate_cooling_load

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 discloses the calculation methodology and explicitly lists the return values (required capacity, installed capacity with redundancy, system recommendation, annual energy). This is meaningful behavioral context, though it omits assumptions or caveats about inputs.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence contributes value. It is concise with no filler.

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?

With six required parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully equip an agent. It lists outputs but does not explain parameter meanings, relationships between inputs and outputs, or any domain-specific constraints.

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 17% (just it_load_kw), and the tool description adds no parameter-level explanation. Five of six parameters lack any descriptive guidance, and the description does not compensate for the gaps.

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 'Estimate' and resource 'cooling load', and adds methodology (CIBSE Guide B2 / ASHRAE) plus a clear list of return values. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the overlapping sibling tool 'thermal_load', so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools like 'thermal_load' or 'calculate_pue'. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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