epa_greenhouse_gas

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds behavioral context by noting the tool returns 'large emitters' only and lists the data fields included, giving agents a better sense of output content beyond the 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?

Three concise sentences: the first states the primary action, the second clarifies data source and return fields, and the third offers a cross-referencing suggestion. Each sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, data source, and typical return fields, making it functionally usable. The only minor omission is an explicit statement about response format or pagination behavior, but the `rows` parameter hints at limits, so the description is adequate.

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%: both `state` and `rows` have descriptive texts. The description does not add any parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions data by state.' It further clarifies the data source (GHGRP), key fields returned, and differentiates from sibling EPA tools like epa_facilities and epa_toxic_releases by focusing on GHG emissions.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (state-level GHG emissions data from GHGRP) and even suggests cross-referencing with EIA and BLS data. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusionary guidance ('use epa_facilities for facility details instead'), falling short of a full when/when-not statement.

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