calculate_formation_pressure_gradient

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the mathematical operation but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or output structure. For a pure calculation, this is adequate but lacks explicit statement that it is read-only and deterministic.

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, using only two sentences to define purpose and formula. Every word adds value; there is no fluff. The formula is front-loaded, making it immediately actionable.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description provides the core formula and parameter units. It does not explain the output units (ppg) or typical use cases, but combined with the output schema, it is largely complete for a straightforward calculation.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description explicitly references the parameters in the formula and includes units (psi, ft). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and title definitions, linking each parameter to the equation and clarifying their roles.

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 it calculates formation pressure gradient in ppg equivalent, with the explicit formula (FPG = P / (0.052 * TVD)). The verb 'calculate' and specific resource 'formation pressure gradient' precisely define the tool's function, distinguishing it from many sibling tools that also start with 'calculate_' but target different properties.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other pressure-related calculations (e.g., calculate_hydrostatic_pressure). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical input ranges, or context where this formula applies (e.g., normally pressured formations).

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