epa_greenhouse_gas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that the data covers only 'large emitters' under GHGRP and enumerates the returned fields, which is especially valuable given the absence of an output schema.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, followed by a compact list of returned fields and a useful cross-reference hint. Every sentence 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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it identifies the data source, scope, returned content, and a related-data hint. It does not mention temporal coverage, aggregation granularity, or update frequency, but those are minor gaps given the low complexity and informative annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%: both 'state' and 'rows' have clear schema descriptions. The tool description reinforces the state-filtering purpose but does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions data by state.' It further distinguishes the tool by naming EPA's GHGRP program and the specific return fields (CO2-equivalent emissions, facility name, sector, location), making it clearly distinct from sibling EPA tools like epa_toxic_releases or epa_facilities.

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 when to use the tool: when GHG emissions data by state from EPA's GHGRP is needed. The cross-reference note with EIA and BLS adds a usage context, but there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or which alternative EPA sibling tools to prefer, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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