green-router__certify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is paid after a free tier, involves retirement of offsets, and returns a certificate with Verra provenance. It does not mention idempotency, rate limits, error conditions, or required authentication. The behavioral traits are partially covered but not exhaustively.

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 verbose and includes marketing fluff (e.g., the bracket note, repeated mention of 'no retirement, no certificate'). It could be significantly condensed without losing meaning. The essential information is present but not efficiently organized.

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 that the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and is part of a larger carbon-accounting system, the description gives a reasonable overview of the process (compute, pay, retire, receive certificate). However, it fails to clarify the expected parameter structure, the prerequisite steps (e.g., need a footprint quote), or the exact response format beyond 'machine-verifiable certificate'.

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 one parameter ('workload') with no description and schema coverage of 0%. The description only vaguely refers to 'compute the workload footprint' without specifying the expected structure or fields of the workload object. This leaves the agent with insufficient guidance on how to populate the parameter.

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 that the tool computes a workload footprint and retires verified offsets to return a machine-verifiable certificate. It uses specific verbs like 'compute' and 'retire' and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like green_route and verify_certificate, though not explicitly. The purpose is clear but could be more succinct.

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 that the tool is used after obtaining a footprint (possibly from green_route) and involves payment. It mentions a fail-closed invariant ('no retirement, no certificate'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_certificate or list_certificates, nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions.

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