heatpump_heatloss

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that results are estimates based on typical values and that SCOP is 'indicative', setting clear expectations. It also lists the return values. However, it does not explicitly mention read-only nature or any permissions, but as a calculation tool this is less critical.

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?

Two sentences: the first states what the tool does and the second lists outputs. No redundant information, front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Despite 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, standards, inputs, return values, and limitation ('not measured'). It could include more methodological detail or safety disclaimers, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a calculation tool.

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 coverage is 60%, with descriptions for many optional parameters. The description mentions key inputs (floor area, storeys, age band, location, glazing) and gives context (fabric + ventilation), but it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and slightly overstates input list by including optional fields as if all are required.

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 ('whole-dwelling fabric + ventilation heat-loss') and clearly distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'for heat pump sizing' and citing standard BS EN 12831 / MCS. The return values (design heat loss, recommended output, SCOP, annual demand) further differentiate it.

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: it is for domestic whole-dwelling heat loss estimation for heat pump sizing. It implicitly indicates when to use (UK heat pump sizing) and hints at limitations ('Typical U-values/SCOP, not measured'), but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios.

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