calculate_oil_co

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the two calculation regimes (above/below bubble point) and lists parameters with units, but does not specify error handling, assumptions for optional parameters, or side effects. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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: a single-sentence purpose, a method reference, and a parameter list. No extraneous information, and the structure is easy to parse. Every sentence earns its place.

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 (two regimes, optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core logic and parameter roles but omits details on the behavior when 'bubble_point_pressure' is omitted or how the output is structured. With output schema available, the return format is covered elsewhere.

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 the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description compensates by providing units and brief context for each parameter (e.g., 'Oil API gravity (degrees)', 'Gas specific gravity (air = 1.0)'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's raw type information, though ranges or allowed values are missing.

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 calculates oil compressibility above and below the bubble point, naming the specific methods used (Vasquez-Beggs and material-balance). This is a specific verb+resource combination that effectively distinguishes it from siblings like 'calculate_pvt_properties' which may compute multiple 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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'calculate_pvt_properties'. It also lacks when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites. The scope is implied by the name, but no explicit usage context is given.

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