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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds meaningful context by specifying the calculation accuracy, Scope 1+2+3 coverage, and a detailed list of returned outputs. It does not mention rate limits or auth requirements, but for a read-only calculator this is sufficient. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and organized into clear sections, which is good. However, the final sentence about Émilie is unnecessary, and the second sentence is a long enumeration of outputs, making the description slightly verbose. It is acceptable but not a model of conciseness.

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?

The description gives strong context for when to use the tool and what outputs to expect, and an output schema exists. However, it does not explain the required input parameters sufficiently, nor does it mention the async option, which is relevant for a potentially slow computation. For a tool with 8 parameters and nested objects, this is a notable gap.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It merely says 'Inputs: the company profile and its activity data,' which is too generic to clarify required parameters like perimeter, scope2Sources, or reductionTargets. This does not add meaningful semantic value over the schema.

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 it calculates a company's greenhouse-gas footprint under the GHG Protocol, specifying Scope 1+2+3, tCO2eq, and tier-2 accuracy ±20%. It lists several distinctive outputs (e.g., SBTi-aligned trajectory, CSRD/ESRS readiness) that differentiate it from sibling tools like sustainability_report or carbon_roadmap.

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 includes an explicit 'When to use this tool' section naming three concrete scenarios: CSRD compliance pre-audit, green-finance access, and supplier ESG scorecards. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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