forecast_advanced_decline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that the tool 'generates rate-time forecast and cumulative production', which is the basic output. It does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or what happens to existing data. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 appropriately sized: a brief opening line summarizing the tool, followed by a clear list of arguments. It front-loads the purpose and then provides structured details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 that the tool has an output schema (not shown in detail) and 4 parameters with nested objects, the description covers the core functionality but lacks context on error handling, output format specifics, or assumptions. It could be more complete by mentioning the type of return value or potential edge cases.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by listing the expected parameters for each model type (e.g., PLE: qi, Di, Dinf, n; Duong: qi, a, m; etc.). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only has generic property types. However, it does not describe the forecast_months and economic_limit parameters beyond their defaults, so coverage is not complete.

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 that the tool forecasts production using advanced decline models (PLE, Duong, SEPD, THM). It specifies that it generates rate-time forecast and cumulative production, and indicates that parameters come from fitting tools or direct THM input. While the purpose is clear, it does not explicitly differentiate from other forecast-related tools like prob_forecast or decline_sensitivity, but the mention of using parameters from fit tools provides some distinction.

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 usage by stating 'Use parameters from fit_ple_decline, fit_duong_decline, or fit_sepd_decline, or provide THM parameters directly.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternative tools for different scenarios. The guidance is present but implicit, missing explicit exclusions or context.

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