oil_gas_valuation__pv10

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

Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool computes discounted net cashflows but does not explain what the tool does beyond that—no mention of inputs, outputs, assumptions, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for a financial computation tool.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, but it front-loads the key purpose. However, conciseness here comes at the expense of completeness, so it is not optimally balanced.

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 complexity of PV-10, the lack of output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely inadequate. It does not specify the expected output format, the discount rate assumption, or how volumes and netback are used, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the three parameters (rate, volumes, netback_per_unit). It does not define what these parameters represent or how they relate to PV-10 calculation, leaving the agent to guess.

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 this tool computes SEC-style PV-10, which is a specific discounted cashflow metric for oil and gas. It distinguishes from sibling tools like decline_production or netback by naming the specific valuation method. However, it does not elaborate on what PV-10 entails beyond the mention of discounting.

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 sibling tools. The description does not mention alternatives or conditions under which this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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