fluid_props_liquid

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears responsibility for disclosures. It reveals that a single preset ('diesel_no2') is currently available and that custom fluids are fit using ASTM D341, giving insight into calculation methods. It does not state explicitly that the operation is read-only or free of side effects, but for a property-lookup tool this is reasonably implied.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose in the first sentence, and uses the second to methodically list the two input modes. No filler or redundant information.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return shape. It covers the main functionality and parameter semantics, but leaves some implicit rules about combining preset and custom fields and about the appropriate use of each mode, which could be ambiguous for an agent.

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 supply meaning. It does so by explaining preset vs custom modes, detailing the viscosity_points format as [[T_degC, cSt], [T_degC, cSt]], and mentioning units for vapor pressure (kPa). This gives an agent sufficient understanding to populate parameters correctly.

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 computes density, viscosity, and vapor pressure for petroleum liquids at a specified temperature. It distinguishes itself from the sibling fluid_props_steam by explicitly targeting liquids, and from other sizing/selection tools by its fluid-properties scope.

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 establishes clear context for use—petroleum liquid property calculations—and explains the two input modes (preset or custom) which helps an agent decide what parameters to supply. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like fluid_props_steam or when not to use this tool, so it lacks formal exclusion guidance.

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