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

Read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior is already fully declared by annotations, so the description's marginal job is to explain the decision logic. It does add the three thresholds (3,000 tCO2e, 1,000 TOE, 65,000 t waste/yr) and the legal instruments applied, which is genuine context. It stops short of saying what happens when inputs are missing or contradictory (e.g., only sector supplied) or how the verdict is reported.

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?

Three compact sentences with zero waste: the action and jurisdiction come first, the legal basis second, the decisive thresholds last. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not indicate what the result looks like (obligated/not obligated, which threshold was triggered, confidence when inputs are absent). For a determination tool with five optional inputs and a single required one, that omission leaves the agent guessing about return semantics.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter, including the TOE/kWh conversion. The description adds value by stating the threshold values each parameter is measured against, letting an agent reason about which inputs are decisive before calling.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Check whether a Vietnamese facility must do a mandatory GHG inventory'), jurisdiction, and named legal basis (Decree 06/2022 as amended by 119/2025, Decision 42/2026/QĐ-TTg). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like calculate_ghg_inventory (which computes emissions) and get_ghg_regulations (which retrieves text).

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?

Usage is implied: you call it to obtain a yes/no obligation determination for a facility. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer it over get_ghg_regulations or calculate_ghg_inventory, and gives no prerequisites (e.g., which combination of inputs is needed for a reliable determination).

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