building_carbon_footprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what the tool returns (per-scope tCO2e, intensity, etc.) and mentions the CRREM stranding check and embodied carbon, implying a calculation/assessment. However, it does not state any assumptions, limitations, or whether it requires additional data not listed in the schema. The read-only nature is implied by 'returns' but not explicitly stated.

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, well-organized sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then enumerates key outputs. No redundant or filler content. It is as concise as possible while conveying essential information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 4 required, no output schema) and the lack of annotations, the description is too brief. It lists output categories but does not explain input requirements, calculation scope, or how to interpret results. This makes the tool's full capabilities ambiguous, especially when compared to sibling tools with more detailed descriptions.

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 0%, meaning the description adds no information about the 10 input parameters. The tool requires 4 parameters (building_type, floor_area_m2, location, year_built) but the description never mentions what inputs are needed or how they influence the result. This is a critical gap for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as a building carbon footprint assessment covering Scope 1/2/3, CRREM stranding check, and embodied carbon. It lists specific outputs (per-scope tCO2e, intensity, CRREM compliance, net-zero gap, priority actions), distinguishing it from generic tools like calculate_carbon and precondition tools like sap_sbem_precheck.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or use-case boundaries. With many sibling tools in the sustainability/building assessment domain, the agent receives no direction on selection.

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