calculate_erosional_vel

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

The description discloses the formula and parameter defaults but does not discuss behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or authorization requirements. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose and formula. It efficiently conveys the key information, though the args list could be structured more clearly (e.g., bullet points) for readability.

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 output schema exists (not shown), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameters. It lacks mention of output details, which is acceptable due to the output schema. For a simple calculation tool, it is mostly 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?

The description adds significant value beyond the input schema by explaining each parameter: density_mix_lb_ft3 as mixture density in lb/ft3, and c_factor as the erosional constant with default value 100 plus usage recommendations for intermittent service and corrosion-resistant alloys. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 erosional velocity per API RP 14E, providing the formula v_e = C / sqrt(rho_mix). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calculate_annular_velocity by specifying the exact quantity and standard.

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. The description only states the calculation purpose, without mentioning when not to use it or how it compares to other velocity-related tools among siblings.

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