estimate_calls_co2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose behavioral traits beyond the schema, notably that results are summed across calls and that the CO2 is 'OPS-avoidable' at berth, but it says nothing about units, authorization, error handling, or how missing call data is treated.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a compact Args block. It is efficiently sized, with only minor imprecision in the fuel definition.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not state what the return value looks like (e.g. total CO2 in tonnes vs kg, per-call breakdown vs single sum), which matters for an aggregation endpoint. Inputs and the summing behavior are reasonably covered, but the missing output framing leaves a real gap.

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 0%, and the description compensates by documenting the nested object keys ('dwt', 'berth_hours', optional 'call_id') that the schema's open item object does not define. However, its explanation of 'fuel' as 'fuel burnt by the auxiliary engine' is imprecise for what the schema shows to be a fuel-type enum (MDO/MGO/HFO).

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?

States a specific verb and resource: estimate at-berth (OPS-avoidable) CO2 for liquid-bulk calls and aggregate. The emphasis on 'MANY' and 'sum it' implicitly separates it from the singular sibling estimate_berth_co2, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'MANY liquid-bulk calls' suggests this is the batch counterpart to estimate_berth_co2, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing (e.g. for a single call or a non-liquid-bulk vessel). An agent must infer the choice from the plural wording.

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