calculate_well_economics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It explains the tool performs a discounted cash flow analysis and lists inputs/outputs, but does not mention edge cases, error conditions, or assumptions (e.g., discounting method, timing of cash flows). 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 structured with a clear opening, output summary, and parameter list. It is somewhat lengthy but uses bullet-like formatting (Args section). Every part adds value, though some parameter descriptions are repetitive of the schema title.

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 (12 parameters, no schema descriptions) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all input parameters and key outputs. It does not explain the financial model in detail, but an agent can infer the purpose and usage. Missing details about assumptions or validation are minor 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter in the 'Args' section with units and context (e.g., 'monthly oil production (bbl) for each period'). Defaults for optional parameters are also documented. However, it could be more explicit about array length consistency.

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 it performs a 'Full discounted cash flow analysis for a well' and specifies outputs like NPV, IRR, payout period, profitability index, and monthly cash flows. This distinguishes it from siblings that calculate individual metrics (e.g., calculate_npv, calculate_irr).

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other similar tools like calculate_npv or calculate_irr. It does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred, which is important given the number of related sibling tools.

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