calculate_oil_co

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It details the algorithms and parameter roles, indicating a read-only computational tool. While it doesn't mention limitations or assumptions, the output schema (present) likely clarifies return values, making behavior transparent.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose statement, followed by methods, and then a labeled parameter list. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for an AI to invoke correctly. It covers the two main cases (above/below bubble point) and required parameters. However, it does not mention potential error conditions or constraints (e.g., what if pressure > Pb but bubble point not given), which would enhance completeness.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the 'Args' block in the description provides clear, unit-specific meanings for each parameter (e.g., API gravity in degrees, gas SG relative to air). It also explains the role of optional parameters (bubble point pressure and rs_at_pb), adding significant value beyond the raw 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 it calculates oil compressibility for above and below bubble point using specific correlations (Vasquez-Beggs and material-balance). The name 'calculate_oil_co' directly indicates the output, and it is distinct from siblings like 'calculate_bubble_point' or 'calculate_pvt_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 explains that optional parameters are needed for below bubble point calculations, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks when/when-not scenarios or comparisons to sibling tools.

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