ghg-ledger__calculate_inventory

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses outputs (per-line gas/CO2e, rollups, etc.), states it's deterministic, and mentions pricing and payment flow. However, it does not explicitly address side effects, authentication, or idempotency, but overall provides substantial behavioral insight.

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 a single paragraph starting with domain and function, which is effective. However, the lengthy list of output names (e.g., 'per-line gas/CO2e results, Scope 1/2/3 and category rollups...') could be shortened without losing clarity. Overall, it is concise and well-structured.

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 (GHG calculation), the description covers purpose, outputs, and cost well. However, it lacks details on input parameter structure (e.g., format of activities), prerequisites (e.g., need for factor packs), and does not clarify the payment_ref parameter beyond mentioning payment methods. These gaps reduce completeness.

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 0% and the description adds minimal parameter detail. It mentions 'explicit activity records' hinting at the activities parameter, and payment info for payment_ref, but lacks structure, types, or examples for activities and options. The description fails to compensate for the lacking schema descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Calculate an auditable GHG inventory from explicit activity records.' It specifies the domain (GHG inventories Scope 1/2/3 dual Scope 2) and lists key outputs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like classify_activity or verify_result.

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 implies usage: when you have explicit activity records and need a GHG inventory. It notes 'This is calculation, not advice,' but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools. Context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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