calculate_solar_panel_output

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

The description lists inputs like 'kW capacity, latitude, panel orientation, shading %' that do not match the input schema parameters (panel_watt_peak, area_m2, hours_sun_per_day, efficiency_loss_pct). This is misleading and contradicts the schema, providing no accurate behavioral transparency. No annotations are present to compensate.

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 concise (4 sentences), but it includes inaccurate information about inputs. The structure is logical (purpose, usage, inputs, related tools) but the inaccuracies undermine its effectiveness. It could be concise and correct, but it is not.

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 the context indicating an output schema exists, the description's claim of 'Returns kWh/day and kWh/year' is incomplete without mentioning other potential outputs or assumptions. The mismatch between described and actual inputs makes the description incomplete for proper tool usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its parameters, so the description should add minimal value. However, the description's parameter list (e.g., latitude, orientation) is entirely different from the schema, causing confusion. It does not clarify or enhance understanding of the actual parameters.

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 estimates solar panel daily and yearly energy output by location and system size, with a specific verb 'estimate' and resource 'solar panel energy output'. It also indicates the use case 'solar installation sizing', distinguishing it from other calculator tools.

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 the tool ('solar installation sizing') and directs users to related 'energie' calculators via list_bundles. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, such as differentiating from the sibling tool 'calculate_solar_roi'.

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