sap_sbem_precheck

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

The description discloses that this is a simplified precheck, not an official certification, and mentions using 'validated SAP 10 fuel factors' for credibility. It also notes the official band is 'cost-based', adding useful context beyond what annotations (which are absent) would provide. It does not describe return values or assumptions for edge cases.

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 long, with each sentence adding essential information: scope (UK SAP 10.3/SBEM), functionality (map and compute), and an important caveat. It is front-loaded with the tool's name as a keyword phrase and wastes no words.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, one nested object, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and a key limitation. It mentions the 'and/or' nature of the two functions, which helps the agent understand usage combinations. However, it does not describe the output format or return values, which is a notable gap without an output schema.

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?

The schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description paraphrases the schema by mentioning 'known SAP rating (1-100)' and 'fuel consumption', but adds no new semantic detail beyond that. It does not, for example, explain how floor_area_m2 is used in the calculation.

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 with specific verbs: 'Maps' a SAP rating to an EPC band and 'computes' annual CO2 and primary energy. It uniquely identifies the UK SAP 10.3 / SBEM EPC context, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like assess_epbd_score or calculate_carbon.

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 usage for preliminary EPC assessments, noting it is a 'precheck'. It explicitly warns that the official EPC band requires a full SAP/RdSAP assessment, providing a clear exclusion. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when to choose this over them.

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