calculate_choke_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the formula, valid flow regime, and parameter defaults, but lacks disclosure of error handling, output units, or behavior for invalid inputs (e.g., negative pressures). The math adds transparency but edge cases are omitted.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose and formula, followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, the description only needs to cover inputs and behavior. It does so adequately for a calculation tool by providing the formula, validity condition, and parameter details. A slight gap is the lack of output description or equation limits, but overall sufficient.

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. It provides a parameter list with names, units, defaults (e.g., water_cut as fraction 0-1, gas_sg default 0.65), adding meaning beyond the schema titles. However, not all parameters have full range constraints, keeping it from a 5.

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 calculates flow rate through a choke using the Gilbert correlation (1954), which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calculate_beggs_brill or calculate_turner_critical by naming the correlation and specifying the application.

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 specifies that the formula is valid for critical (sonic) flow only, giving a clear condition for use. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, which is needed given the many similar calculation tools.

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