calculate_freight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently reveals the calculation model (emissions = tonnes × km × factor), the GLEC methodology, and the dependency on factor_key lookup. It does not describe output units or error behavior, but the formula is the core behavioral trait for this calculator.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and no filler. The formula and factor-lookup guidance are packed efficiently into a compact description.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover both inputs and behavior. It explains the input semantics via the formula and points to the factor source, but it stops short of explicitly stating the output emission unit or result format. Overall, it is complete enough for a straightforward calculator 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing how mass, distance, and factor combine in the formula and by giving a concrete factor_key example (freight.road_hgv.tonne_km), which clarifies the expected key format beyond the schema.

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 specifies a clear verb and resource: calculate freight/logistics emissions using the GLEC tonne-km method. It also narrows scope to Scope 3 Categories 4 & 9, which distinguishes it from sibling calculators like calculate_activity and calculate_spend.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: freight & logistics emissions via tonne-km. It proactively directs users to search_factors for factor lookup with a concrete section and example, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other calculate_* siblings.

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