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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'look up' suggests a read-only operation, it does not disclose what happens when multiple codes are supplied, the return format, error behavior, or any auth requirements. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, lists the codes efficiently, and contains zero filler. Perfectly sized for the purpose.

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?

Despite having 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description only lists lookup criteria. It does not state that country is required, explains how to combine codes with currency or activity_quantity, or describe the expected result. The tool is complex, and the description is too thin.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds a high-level grouping of codes and activity type but does not explain how they interrelate (e.g., precedence, whether either a code or activity_type is required). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('look up') and resource ('emission factors'), and enumerates the classification codes (MCC, NAICS, ISIC, SIC, NACE, BEA) plus activity type. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling calculation tools.

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 implies use for retrieving emission factors, which contrasts with the calculate_* siblings, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this tool over them. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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