calculate_pvt_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It outlines returned properties but does not disclose computational assumptions, limitations (e.g., black-oil only), or accuracy ranges.

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, list of returns, and Args section. It is informative without being verbose, though slight conciseness could be improved.

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 7 parameters and existence of an output schema, the description covers what properties are returned, supported correlations, and parameter meanings. Units are implied but not explicitly stated for all parameters.

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 detailed parameter explanations (e.g., 'API gravity (degrees)' for api_gravity) that go beyond the schema's titles and types.

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 'Calculate comprehensive black-oil PVT properties at given conditions' and lists all returned properties, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like 'calculate_bubble_point' or 'calculate_gas_z'.

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 lists supported correlation sets but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate_bubble_point' or 'calculate_gas_z'. Usage is implied for comprehensive PVT calculations.

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