calculate_ratios

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permission requirements, or edge cases (e.g., handling zero rates). The description is minimal on behavior beyond the calculation itself.

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 short (two sentences plus args) and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. The arg list is structured. Could be slightly more front-loaded, but overall concise.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it mentions GOR, WOR, water cut, and well type. For a tool with three required parameters and no nested objects, this is adequate though not exhaustive.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds units (bbl/day, Mcf/day) and full names for each parameter, which is valuable beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain constraints or typical ranges.

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?

Description clearly states it calculates producing ratios (GOR, WOR, water cut) and classifies well type. Verb 'calculate' and resource 'producing ratios' are specific. However, among many sibling tools with similar 'calculate_' prefixes, it lacks differentiation, but the purpose is still well-defined.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other calculation tools or when not to use it. No context for selection is provided.

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