radius_of_investigation

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

The description includes the formula and parameter units, providing behavioral context beyond the schema. However, there is no discussion of edge cases or validation; for a pure mathematical tool, this is acceptable.

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 concise, but the parameter listing could be more integrated. The formula is placed early, aiding understanding.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to cover return values. It adequately covers purpose, formula, and parameters, leaving no gaps for this calculation tool.

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 description fully documents all parameters with units (e.g., 'permeability_md: Formation permeability in millidarcies'), compensating for the 0% schema coverage. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 explicitly states 'Calculate radius of investigation for a well test' and provides the formula, making the purpose clear and specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rta_permeability by focusing on this particular calculation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., other RTA tools). The description only explains what the tool does, without context or exclusions.

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