calculate_hydrostatic_pressure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly gives the calculation formula (0.052 * MW * TVD), making the core behavior transparent. However, it does not discuss assumptions (e.g., consistent units, hydrostatic gradient constant) or potential error conditions (e.g., negative inputs), leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, consisting of two sentences: one stating the purpose and formula, and one listing the arguments with units. Every word is informative, and the structure is front-loaded with the key formula, making it easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema (not shown but noted as present), so return values are defined elsewhere. The description covers the essential purpose and input semantics. However, it lacks context on typical usage scenarios (e.g., drilling engineering) or boundary conditions, which for a simple tool might be acceptable but slightly incomplete.

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%, but the description adds essential unit information: 'Mud weight in pounds per gallon (ppg).' and 'True vertical depth in feet.' This clarifies the expected input format beyond the schema's type-only definition, adding significant semantic value.

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 what the tool does: 'Calculate hydrostatic pressure (P = 0.052 * MW * TVD).' It uses specific verb 'calculate' and specifies the resource ('hydrostatic pressure') with the exact formula. This distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_ecd or calculate_annular_velocity which compute 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as valid units or positive inputs, nor does it suggest alternative tools for similar calculations. A user must infer usage from the formula alone.

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