ghg-ledger__get_factor_pack

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses the tool's deterministic nature ('deterministic GHG inventories') and its strict matching behavior ('No nearest-region or nearest-year substitution'). It also lists the exact return contents (factors, GWP, conversions, sources, pack SHA), which adds value beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded with context. The bracket phrase ('deterministic GHG inventories (Scope 1/2/3 + dual Scope 2)') adds useful context but slightly clutters the direct statement. Overall efficient.

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 straightforward lookup tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, the exact matching constraint, and determinism. It omits error handling or edge cases but is adequate for typical use.

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 has 0% coverage (no descriptions for region or year). The description adds that region and year must be exact and bundled, but it does not specify formats (e.g., region code vs. name, year as integer YYYY) or constraints, leaving ambiguity.

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 action: 'Return factors, GWP values, conversions, sources, and pack SHA' for a specific resource ('one exact bundled region/year'). It distinguishes itself from potential siblings by noting 'No nearest-region or nearest-year substitution.'

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 specifies that the tool is for exact region/year matches and warns against substitution, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for approximate matches or when to avoid this tool.

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