calculate_coleman_critical

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It notes the formula reference and relationship to Turner, indicates a default for tubing ID, and mentions the optional parameter for status check. While it doesn't elaborate on output structure (output schema exists), it gives sufficient behavioral context for a calculation tool.

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 very concise: one sentence for purpose and recommendation, followed by a compact parameter list. No redundant information, and key details are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, many sibling tools) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, recommended usage, parameter explanations. It lacks mention of error conditions or output format, but these are partially covered by the output schema. Overall, it is reasonably complete.

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. The Args section describes each parameter with units (psi, deg F), default value (tubing_id_in), and optional nature (current_rate_mcfd). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema fields, though it lacks constraints or ranges.

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 explicitly states the tool calculates the Coleman critical rate for liquid loading, which is 20% below the Turner rate. It also specifies the application to low-pressure gas wells, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'calculate_turner_critical'.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Recommended for low-pressure gas wells (< ~500 psi wellhead pressure).' This tells the agent when to prefer this tool over alternatives, such as the Turner method for higher pressures. The alternative is implied by naming Turner in the description and listing it among siblings.

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