calculate_ecd

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It reveals the algebraic formula and parameter roles, indicating a pure computation with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state idempotency, safety, or assumptions (e.g., steady-state, incompressible flow).

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 extremely concise: one formula line and a labeled parameter list. No redundant words. The formula is immediately visible, fulfilling the front-loading principle.

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?

For a simple algebraic tool with an output schema, the description covers the formula and all inputs. It lacks explicit mention of the output unit (presumably ppg) but the formula implies it. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for this complexity level.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists each parameter with a brief definition and unit (ppg, psi, ft), adding meaning beyond the schema's bare titles. Further detail (e.g., typical ranges, constraints) would improve it.

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 equivalent circulating density and provides the formula. It distinguishes itself from numerous sibling 'calculate_*' tools by specifying the exact quantity and equation, but could be more explicit about the drilling context.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_hydrostatic_pressure or other density-related tools. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or context indications.

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