calculate_well_economics

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

Without annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It explains the analysis type (discounted cash flow), notes capex applied at time 0, and includes default rates, giving sufficient context for a deterministic calculation tool.

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 sentence, a high-level explanation, and a detailed parameter list. It is clear but could be slightly more concise; however, the detail justifies the length.

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 (12 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the purpose, inputs, and outputs adequately. It does not discuss edge cases but is sufficient for a straightforward financial calculation.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides one-line explanations for all 12 parameters, including units (bbl, Mcf, $) and defaults. This adds necessary context beyond the schema names 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 specifies a 'Full discounted cash flow analysis for a well' and lists outputs (NPV, IRR, payout period, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'calculate_irr' or 'calculate_npv' which only compute individual metrics.

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 states it takes production arrays and economic assumptions, implying its use when a complete DCF is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to specific alternatives among the many siblings.

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