emissions_calculator

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context: deterministic nature, inclusion of average empty running, low representativeness for sea/air, rate limiting behavior with 429 error details, and return of available:false for unknown options. No contradictions 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 relatively long but well-structured with logical paragraphs. Each sentence adds value, covering purpose, inputs, behavior, limitations, and related tools. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall efficient for the complexity involved.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, output schema exists, annotations present), the description is thorough. It covers limitations, rate limits, return value structure (well-to-wheel and tank-to-wheel, factor used, tonne-km, confidence, _source, citation), and references to standards. No gaps identified.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds critical context beyond schema: mass must be gross actual (not chargeable), distance must be provided, and warns against common air freight mistake. Also clarifies basis options (wtw/ttw) and region meanings. This adds significant value for correct parameter usage.

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 the tool estimates freight transport greenhouse-gas emissions per ISO 14083:2023 / GLEC Framework v3.2. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cbm_calculator and chargeable_weight_calculator, which handle size or billing, not CO2e.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance (freight emission estimation) and what to avoid (do not route, do not use chargeable weight, do not add empty return leg). It also mentions alternatives like get_subscribe_link for higher rate limits and related calculators for other purposes.

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