stock_tank_gas_sg

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully explains what the tool computes (specific gravity of gas liberated at stock tank conditions), describes the return format (dictionary with values, units, and inputs), and clarifies the dimensionless nature of the output (air = 1.0). It doesn't mention error conditions, performance characteristics, or validation requirements.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then context, applications, return format, and parameter/return sections. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or wasted words. The bulleted list of applications is appropriately concise.

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 the calculation (5 nested parameters, no schema descriptions) and the existence of an output schema, the description does an adequate job explaining what the tool does and why. However, the complete lack of parameter documentation in both schema and description creates a significant gap for a tool with this level of technical complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. While it mentions that the 'request' parameter includes 'oil properties and separator conditions,' this is too vague given the 5 nested parameters (api, degf, sg_g, p, psep) that remain unexplained. The description doesn't provide meaningful guidance on what these parameters represent or how they interact.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('stock tank gas specific gravity'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on gas liberated at stock tank conditions. It explicitly differentiates from 'evolved_gas_sg' by specifying the context of atmospheric pressure and temperature.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by listing specific applications (sales gas quality, flare gas calculations, VOC emissions, safety assessments). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools, particularly 'evolved_gas_sg' which appears closely related.

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