decline_sensitivity

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that each parameter is varied independently, EUR is computed at low and high values, and results are sorted by impact. This explains the process beyond the name, though it does not detail potential side effects or limitations.

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 efficiently structured: a concise opening sentence followed by a numbered list of parameters. It front-loads the purpose and uses minimal but informative language. Every sentence contributes.

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 5 parameters (one complex) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and parameter semantics. It explains the output is tornado chart data sorted by impact, which is sufficient. Minor gap: no mention of the return format, but output schema likely fills that.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides units (bbl/day, 1/month), defaults (economic_limit=5.0), and explains the optional parameter_ranges with its default behavior. This adds significant value over the bare schema names.

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 states it performs sensitivity analysis on decline parameters for tornado chart data, which is specific and distinct from siblings like calculate_price_sensitivity. It clearly identifies the verb (sensitivity analysis) and resource (decline parameters for EUR).

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 implies use for tornado chart visualization when analyzing decline parameter impact on EUR, providing clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. It is helpful but could be improved by mentioning exclusion criteria.

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