offsets__net_position

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

The description discloses the core computation (emitted minus retired) and mentions the carbon_accountable flag. However, it does not specify side effects (presumably none), data sources for 'retired', permissions needed, or error conditions. With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility; it is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise at two sentences plus a domain prefix. It conveys the core purpose efficiently. However, the structure could be improved by leading with the verb and separating domain info from behavior.

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 annotations, no output schema, and sparse parameter descriptions, the description gives a basic understanding but lacks details about output format, edge cases, or integration with other offsets tools. It is sufficient for a simple calculation tool but not fully complete.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'emitted_g' by linking it to 'agent-compute-ledger', and implies 'buyer' is used to look up retired amounts. This adds value beyond the schema but does not fully clarify all parameter nuances.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: computing a buyer's net carbon position (emitted minus retired). It distinguishes from sibling tools like offsets__list_credit or offsets__get_purchase by focusing on a specific calculation. However, the description lacks an explicit verb like 'calculate' or 'get', slightly reducing clarity.

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 alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify that this tool is for querying position rather than purchasing offsets.

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