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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that figures include per-scope data, units, and whether values are reported by the company or estimated by Mycelium, giving meaningful insight into the response. It does not cover edge cases or error behavior, but for a read operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action and key details, while the second gives a concise usage tip. Every clause adds value.

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, no output schema, and empty annotations, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns (scope breakdown, units, source tags) and how to customize the call via year. The required entity parameter is clearly documented. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds the 'Omit year' instruction, but this merely restates the schema's 'Defaults to the latest year on file.' The entity parameter is already well documented as coming from search-entities, so the description adds little beyond what structured data already 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: a company's full greenhouse gas emission figures for one reporting year in the OpenCCF data model. It details what is included (per-scope lines, kgCO2e, reported/estimated tags), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get-entity-profile and search-entities.

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 clearly frames the intended use: retrieving emission figures for one reporting year, with the instruction to omit year for the latest reporting year. The schema adds guidance to obtain the entity slug from search-entities, implying a workflow. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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