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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the source (SAMR), the 2026 vintage, and the catalogue-vs-database boundary. It stops short of noting anything about result volume or default limit behavior, which is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loaded with labeled Purpose, Guidelines and Limits sections so the essential selection rule appears first. Every clause earns its place, and the one-line example replaces several sentences of parameter explanation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the remaining unknowns: source authority, scope boundary, filter composition and usage condition. For a read-only five-parameter catalogue query, nothing needed for a correct call is missing.

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 baseline is 3, and the description earns an extra point by explaining the semantics of the kind enum as capacity categories and showing how keyword composes with it. The example with a Chinese keyword also signals that keyword matching works against native-language names/categories.

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?

Names a specific resource and scope: the 2026 SAMR catalogue of carbon-emissions metrology capacity, covering inspection parameters, measurement methods and reference standard devices. It also states what it is not ('NOT an emission-factor database'), which separates it from siblings like query_cbam_emission_factors without needing to name them.

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?

Gives an explicit selection rule: use when the question is about HOW a quantity is measured (instrument, verification regulation, reference device) rather than an emission-factor value. It also supplies a concrete filter pattern (kind + keyword) with a worked example, so an agent knows both when to call it and how.

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