emissions_calculator

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds substantial behavioral context: it is a best-effort reference estimate (not verified/audited), sea/air are generic defaults with real variations, unknown mode/sub_mode/region returns available:false with covered options. Warns about common mistakes (chargeable weight, empty running). No contradiction 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?

Description is well-structured with key information front-loaded. Each sentence serves a purpose. However, it is somewhat lengthy (over 150 words). Could be slightly more concise without losing critical guidance, but overall efficient for the complexity.

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, 4 enums, output schema), the description is fully complete. It covers input semantics, method reference, output details, limitations, and error handling (available:false). 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 description coverage is 100%, but description adds significant meaning beyond schema: explains mass should be actual gross mass (not chargeable), distance must be provided by user, sub_mode is optional, basis and region have defaults. Adds context about factor sources and empty running. For a tool with 7 parameters, this explanation is highly valuable.

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 clearly states the tool estimates freight transport greenhouse-gas emissions per ISO 14083:2023/GLEC Framework. It specifies inputs (mass, distance, mode) and outputs (emissions, factor, activity). It distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with cbm_calculator, ldm_calculator, and chargeable_weight_calculator (those size or bill; this estimates CO2e). The verb 'estimate' and resource 'greenhouse-gas emissions' are specific.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when a carbon estimate is needed for a shipment with known mass and distance. Provides clear when-not: 'Distance must be provided — this tool does NOT route'. Gives important caveats: pass actual gross mass (not chargeable), do not add empty return, sea/air are low representativeness. Also notes siblings for size/billing purposes. Comprehensive guidance.

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