token_burn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the response contents: 'result, formula, interpretation and a ready-to-quote cite_as sentence,' and clarifies that all parameters are optional with defaults. This gives meaningful insight into behavior beyond the schema, though it does not detail the underlying formula, assumptions, or potential output format specifics.

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 first sentence front-loads the core output units and scope, the second covers optionality/defaults, and the third describes the response shape. The URL is long but relevant as a source for defaults. Overall compact 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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately names the response components: result, formula, interpretation, and cite_as sentence. It also states the periods and units (per day and per year; money, kWh, CO₂, households). A minor gap is the lack of explicit relationship to sibling tools and the exact formula/assumptions, but for a simple calculator with fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter and its default. The description adds the high-level guarantee that 'All parameters optional' and that defaults mirror an external calculator, which helps an agent safely invoke the tool with zero parameters. This goes slightly beyond the schema by clarifying optionality and the default-source behavior.

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 function: 'Org-wide token burn as money, kilowatt-hours, CO₂ and households powered — per day and per year.' This identifies the resource and output units, making the purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like token_cost or llm_energy, but the multi-unit energy/cost scope is distinctive enough to prevent major confusion.

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 says 'All parameters optional — defaults mirror the interactive calculator,' which is useful invocation guidance, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternative siblings such as token_cost or llm_energy. No exclusions, prerequisites, or use-case context are provided, so the agent must infer when this is the right choice.

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