describe_emission_sector

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It transparently reveals a key behavioral trait: parents already include children, so summing a sector with its parent or children causes double counting. It also lists the output components. It does not mention error behavior or permissions, but for a read-only description tool this is sufficient.

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 with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the critical double-counting warning is presented as a separate, clear sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential behavior and the important aggregation caveat. It does not mention how to find sector codes (e.g., via search_emission_sectors), but that is a minor omission.

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 provides only a string type with no description for sector_code, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds that it is an 'IPCC sector code,' which gives some semantic context, but it does not provide format, examples, or how to obtain valid codes. This is minimal compensation for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 tool's function: it describes one IPCC sector code and lists the exact output fields (name, level, parent, direct children). The verb 'describe' is specific, and the resource is unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_emission_sectors or get_emissions_series.

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 its usage (for retrieving details of a single sector) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. The double-counting warning offers a usage caveat for aggregation, but it does not address tool selection.

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