calculate_environmental_impact

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states what is calculated without disclosing behavioral traits such as assumptions (e.g., default solar irradiance), whether the calculation is deterministic, or if any external data is required. The agent has no information on potential side effects or limitations.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the key outputs. Every word earns its place; no redundant or vague phrasing is present.

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?

Although the tool is simple with one parameter, the description omits output format details (units for energy/CO2, nature of 'trees saved') and any underlying assumptions. Without an output schema, the agent cannot fully anticipate the response structure, leaving the description partially complete.

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?

The single parameter capacity_kw is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no additional semantics. The baseline is 3, as the schema carries the parameter meaning and the description doesn't augment it.

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 ('calculate') with a clear resource ('environmental impact') and enumerates three specific output metrics (annual energy generation, CO2 reduction, trees saved). This distinguishes it from sibling calculators like calculate_roi or calculate_subsidy, which focus on financial metrics.

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 environmental impact calculations but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The agent must infer suitability from the tool name and output list, which is only implicit.

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