green-router__list_green_certificates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states it is 'FREE' and gives output fields. It does not mention side effects, authentication, rate limits, or any operational traits, leaving significant gaps.

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 with a marketing tagline ('[green-router...]', 'honest books, GR8') that adds little operational value. While it has some structure, it is not concise and includes unnecessary promotional language.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description should provide a complete picture but only gives vague output fields. It does not clarify the return format, whether it lists individual certificates or summarized data, or any other details needed for correct invocation.

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 single parameter `limit` has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and is not explained in the description. The agent receives no semantic information about what the parameter controls or its impact.

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 identifies the tool as returning the certificate ledger with counts, total grams retired, and total clearinghouse cost, making the purpose clear. However, the name suggests listing individual certificates, while the description implies aggregated totals, causing slight ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like `green-router__quote_footprint` or `green-router__verify_green_certificate`. The description lacks any explicit usage context or alternatives.

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