calculate_vertical_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only lists parameters and gives a high-level explanation, without mentioning side effects, validation, auth, or output format (though output schema exists).

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then provides a concise explanation and a well-structured argument list. It is efficient with no fluff, though the 'Args' could be slightly more compact.

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 well trajectory projection, the description explains inputs and purpose but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. The output schema exists, so return values are not required. Overall adequate but with clear gaps.

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 provides an 'Args' section that explains the meaning and default values for all 5 parameters (e.g., 'Vertical section azimuth in degrees', unit choice). This compensates for the missing schema 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?

Description starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Project well trajectory onto a vertical section plane.' It explains the calculation (horizontal displacement in 2D cross-section) and is distinct from siblings like calculate_dogleg_severity or calculate_well_survey.

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 mentions it's the 'standard way to view a well path in 2D cross-section,' implying usage context, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, nor provides conditions or exclusions.

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