calculate_archie_sw

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It provides the Archie equation and parameter definitions, covering the core behavior. However, it doesn't discuss edge cases, input validation, or assumptions beyond clean sands.

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?

Description is concise with a single sentence of purpose and a clean Args list. Front-loaded with equation and parameters. No 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and petrophysical context, the description sufficiently explains inputs and equation. Could mention that Sw output is a fraction (0-1), but output schema likely covers that.

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?

Description adds significant meaning beyond schema by explaining each parameter (e.g., 'True formation resistivity', 'Porosity (fraction v/v, 0-1)') and defaults. Schema only had titles and types (0% coverage), so this completely compensates.

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?

Description clearly states it calculates water saturation using Archie equation for clean sands. Distinguishes from sibling tools like Simandoux or Indonesian that are for shaly sands.

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 mentions 'clean sands' implying when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or give alternatives. Sibling names like 'simandoux_sw' and 'indonesian_sw' suggest variety, so context is helpful but not fully explicit.

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