calculate_fuel_consumption

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It adequately describes inputs and outputs but does not disclose any edge cases, side effects, or validation behavior beyond what the schema implies. The simplicity of the tool partly excuses the lack of detail.

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?

Two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, inputs, outputs, and a helpful cross-reference. No superfluous information, and key details are front-loaded.

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?

For a simple calculation tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema described inline, the description covers all necessary information: what it calculates, required inputs, and returned values. No 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?

Both parameters (distance_km, fuel_liters) are fully described in the schema, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond that. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 calculates fuel consumption in L/100km and MPG, specifying the input (distance and fuel used) and output fields. It distinguishes itself from numerous sibling 'calculate_' tools by its specific purpose.

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 a cross-reference to list_bundles for related 'auto-transport' calculators, implying usage context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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