calculate_indonesian_sw

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

No annotations are provided, and the description focuses solely on the formula and parameters. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as return value structure, error handling, or constraints beyond parameter ranges. This is a gap given the lack of annotations.

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 summary line, origin reference, and parameter list. It is informative but slightly verbose; could be more concise by combining some sentences.

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 complexity of 8 parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and parameters. It lacks usage examples or mention of limitations, but covers essential aspects.

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 provides detailed parameter descriptions with units (ohm-m, fraction v/v, 0-1) and defaults (a=1.0, m=2.0, n=2.0). This fully compensates for the input schema having zero descriptions.

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 water saturation using the Indonesian equation for high-Vshale formations, and distinguishes it from Archie and Simandoux equations. The mention of Poupon and Leveaux (1971) adds authority.

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?

It explicitly says 'Better than Archie/Simandoux for very shaly sands,' guiding the user on when to use this tool. It does not specify conditions when not to use it, but the comparative statement is sufficient.

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