calculate_eur

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully describe behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. It also does not mention output schema or potential side effects. The description focuses on parameters but lacks behavioral context.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence and a bulleted parameter list. While slightly verbose, each sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Minor redundancy (e.g., units repeated) but overall efficient.

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 (8 parameters, 1 required, 0% schema coverage) and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose and parameters but does not describe the return value or provide usage context. The missing output description and lack of examples reduce completeness for a complex calculation tool.

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 (no parameter descriptions). The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: qi (initial rate), Di (initial decline), b (Arps b-factor), economic_limit, model (list of models), Dmin (terminal decline), and Duong parameters a and m. This adds essential meaning beyond the 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 tool's purpose: 'Calculate Estimated Ultimate Recovery using decline parameters.' It lists specific supported models (Arps exponential, hyperbolic, harmonic, modified hyperbolic, and Duong), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like forecast_advanced_decline or fit_decline. The verb 'calculate' and resource 'EUR' are precise.

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 implies usage for EUR calculation with decline parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like decline_sensitivity or fit_decline. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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