estimate_maritime_freight_and_carbon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the calculation is read-only, a simulation, dependent on external data, or subject to assumptions — it only lists output values. This leaves key behavioral traits undocumented.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the laundry-list formatting could be slightly improved for readability.

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 and no annotations, the description does help by enumerating expected outputs, but it omits usage context, behavioral assumptions, and prerequisites for a multi-output estimation tool. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 67%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it does not explain mineral_type, origin_country, cargo_weight defaults, or the avoid_chokepoints format). The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema carries most of the weight.

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 uses a specific verb ('Calculates') and enumerates concrete outputs (distance, duration, freight costs, surcharges, CII rating, CBAM costs), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from siblings like optimize_mineral_trade_route or calculate_trade_tariffs, which is why it does not reach a 5.

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, when not to, or what alternatives exist. It merely states what is computed, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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