ghg-ledger__get_factor_pack

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 mentions the tool is deterministic and returns specific data, but does not state behavior on missing region/year (e.g., error or empty result) or confirm read-only nature. Some additional behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 two sentences: a bracketed domain context and a concise statement of return value and constraint. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the domain information. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description enumerates return components (factors, GWP, conversions, sources, pack SHA), which is helpful. It covers the main purpose but could elaborate on structure (e.g., factors per scope/gas) and error handling for missing packs. Overall, fairly complete for a retrieval tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for both parameters (region and year). The description adds only the word 'exact' to constrain them, but fails to specify expected region format (e.g., ISO code) or allowed year range. This is insufficient given the zero schema coverage; more parameter guidance is needed.

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 it returns factors, GWP values, conversions, sources, and pack SHA for a specific region/year. The bracketed context sets the domain, and the explicit 'No nearest-region or nearest-year substitution' distinguishes it from sibling tools that may perform fuzzy matching.

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 explicitly says 'No nearest-region or nearest-year substitution', telling the agent when not to use this tool. This provides clear negative guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like list_factor_packs for browsing available packs, which would improve positive usage guidance.

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