carbon_flight_emissions

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

No annotations are provided, and the description is minimal. It does not disclose whether the tool requires authentication, rate limits, or what happens with invalid input. The description relies entirely on the tool's name to imply non-destructive behavior, lacking explicit behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it may be too brief for adequate understanding.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return values but does not. It also lacks context on how to structure flight legs, whether passengers is optional, or that an API key is required. For a tool with 3 parameters, the description is incomplete.

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 only 33% (legs parameter has a description). The tool description does not add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, failing to compensate for the missing descriptions of 'passengers' and 'api_key'.

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 purpose: 'Estimate carbon emissions for a flight.' It specifies a verb ('estimate') and a resource ('carbon emissions for a flight'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like carbon_electricity_emissions and carbon_vehicle_emissions by focusing on flights.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not contrast with other carbon estimation tools or mention prerequisites like requiring an API key. The agent receives no context on selection criteria.

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