tool_calculate_flight_carbon

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden by disclosing important behavioral traits: use of specific emission factors, radiative forcing, per-passenger and total emissions, carbon offset cost at $18/tonne, and train/car comparison. It also states that no API key is required, which is useful for the agent.

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 well-structured with a brief introductory sentence followed by a list of arguments in a docstring format. It is informative without unnecessary repetition, though slightly longer than minimal. Every sentence adds value.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and key behaviors (emission factors, offset cost, comparisons). It does not specify return format or error cases, but these are not required without an output 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed docstring-style explanations for all parameters, including example values (e.g., 'JFK', 'LHR'), defaults (passengers=1, cabin_class='economy', trip_type='round_trip'), and valid options (cabin_class: economy | premium_economy | business | first). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 the specific verb 'calculate' and clearly identifies the resource 'flight carbon'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on carbon footprint calculation, a unique function among the listed 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 explains what the tool does and includes context like using ICAO/DEFRA 2024 factors, no API key required, and comparisons to train/car. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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