calculate_choke_flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the formula, valid flow regime, default values, and parameter meanings. However, it does not mention what the output represents (e.g., units of flow rate) or any potential error conditions.

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 efficient: a single sentence for purpose, the formula, a condition, and a parameter list. Each sentence contributes meaning. No redundant or vague text.

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 existence of an output schema (context signal), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers all parameters, valid condition, and defaults. Minor omission: the output unit is not stated, but the 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description provides clear explanations for all parameters, including units (e.g., 'Upstream pressure in psi') and defaults (e.g., water_cut default 0.0). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 action 'Calculate flow rate through a choke' and specifies the exact correlation used (Gilbert 1954). It differentiates itself from many sibling calculate_* tools by focusing on choke flow and providing the governing formula.

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 the valid condition 'Valid for critical (sonic) flow only', implying when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or point to alternative tools (e.g., for subsonic flow). No sibling comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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