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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It enumerates a rich set of outputs (reports, rollups, dual reporting, factor lineage, notary payload, dry-run weave) and discloses pricing and payment requirements. This goes well beyond a simple 'calculate' statement and gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose, then outputs, a boundary statement, and pricing in four sentences. It earns its length with valuable details, though some jargon (e.g., 'dry-run weave') could be simplified without losing meaning.

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 tool has four parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations. The description provides rich output expectations, which partially compensates for the lack of output schema visibility, but leaves the input side under-specified: the format of activity records, options, and request_id are not explained. Given the complexity, more input guidance is needed for full completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains 'explicit activity records' and hints at payment_ref through the payment process. The options and request_id parameters are completely unexplained, and even the structure of what constitutes an activity record is not defined, leaving the agent uncertain how to populate the required 'activities' array.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Calculate an auditable GHG inventory from explicit activity records.' It then lists concrete outputs (per-line gas/CO2e, Scope 1/2/3 rollups, dual Scope 2 reporting, factor lineage), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like classify_activity or verify_result.

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 provides a boundary with 'This is calculation, not advice' and mentions usage limits, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like classify_activity or verify_result. Usage context is implied by the verb 'calculate' rather than explicitly guiding the agent on tool selection.

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