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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the summary output structure, per-item ok/not_covered/error statuses, and supported fields. Lacks explicit mention of auth/rate limits, but for a calculation tool the behavioral disclosure is solid.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct value: batch capability, use case, and key supported fields. Front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant wording.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explicitly lists return value components: total embedded tCO2e, total certificates, total EUR liability, and per-item statuses. This is sufficient for a batch calculation tool with clear input schema.

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 has 100% coverage for all 3 parameters. Description only reiterates actual_emissions_tco2e_per_t and carbon_price_paid_eur_per_tonne without adding new meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies because schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate CBAM liability for up to 100 shipments in one request', clearly distinguishing from single-shipment siblings. It also states the output is a portfolio-level summary, reinforcing the batch scope.

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?

Provides explicit ideal-use context: 'Ideal for pricing a whole shipment manifest or product catalogue'. It also explains batch fault-tolerance behavior ('one bad item doesn't fail the batch'), which is a key differentiator from single-item tools.

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