uae_climate_ghg

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It honestly labels the result as an 'estimate' and notes that grid factors carry base-year/confidence caveats. However, it does not disclose what the output looks like, whether both scopes are always returned, or how optional gas parameters interact, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and immediately provides regulatory and caveat context. Every sentence contributes essential information with zero redundancy, making it concise and well-structured.

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 there is no output schema, the description omits any mention of the return format or how results are presented. It also doesn't explain how to choose between gas_m3 and gas_kwh or what happens when both are provided. While it includes useful regulatory and caveat context, these gaps prevent it from being fully complete for a 4-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 75% per context signals, so the schema already explains gas_m3 and gas_kwh. The description adds meaning to the 'emirate' parameter by mentioning emirate-specific grid factors, but it doesn't clarify the relationship between gas_m3 and gas_kwh or the units. It adds some value but not substantial beyond the schema.

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 estimates UAE Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions from electricity and gas use, with a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('GHG'). It differentiates from sibling tools by naming emirate-specific grid factors and the Federal Decree-Law context, making its scope unambiguous.

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 use for UAE mandatory reporting by mentioning the Federal Decree-Law context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like calculate_carbon or building_carbon_footprint. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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