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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It names the regulation and calculation scope but says nothing about determinism, required inputs beyond the schema, error handling, side effects, rate limits, or what the returned values represent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The regulation citation and input list are all useful and nothing is repeated unnecessarily.

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?

This is a complex regulatory calculation with no annotations and no output schema. The description explains what is calculated but not what the result contains, how emissions or liability are returned, or what units/format to expect. An agent would be left guessing about the output contract.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters in detail. The description lists several inputs but adds no syntax, units, or meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb (Calculate) and a specific regulated resource (EU CBAM embedded emissions and liability), with the exact inputs it consumes. Sibling tools are all validators/parsers/decoders, so this calculation tool is clearly distinguished.

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 by the name and description: use this when calculating CBAM emissions and liability. However, it does not state when to prefer it over alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusion or prerequisite guidance.

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