calculate_fuel_consumption

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It clearly describes the calculation and output, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or otherwise disclose behavioral traits beyond the obvious fact that it performs a calculation.

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 concise, comprising two sentences that efficiently communicate the tool's purpose and output. No redundant or unnecessary information is present, making it well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 two-parameter calculator, the description covers the main purpose, input requirements, and output structure. It omits slight details like the assumed fuel type (petrol) for CO2 calculation and edge-case handling, but overall it is sufficiently complete given the tool's low complexity and the presence of output field names in the description.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters with clear descriptions ('Distance in km', 'Fuel consumed in liters'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds minimal value beyond restating the parameters, so the default baseline of 3 applies.

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 that the tool calculates fuel consumption in L/100km and MPG from distance and fuel used, and lists the output fields. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like calculate_fuel_cost or convert_fuel_consumption, missing a chance to stand out among many similar calculation tools.

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 hints at a related bundle ('auto-transport' calculators) by instructing users to see list_bundles, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is minimal and implied rather than direct.

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