recovery_factor

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

No annotations are provided. The description discloses the tool is a calculation (read-only) and notes unit consistency, but does not address error handling, input constraints (e.g., zero values), or output format. Basic transparency but not extensive.

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 extremely concise, with only 5 lines including the formula and parameter explanations. It front-loads the core formula and includes no superfluous 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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose, formula, units, and parameter meanings. The presence of an output schema (not shown) likely handles return values. It is complete but could mention that the output is a single numeric value.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: 'ooip_or_ogip' as original in place and 'cumulative_production' as cumulative production with same units. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and title.

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 the tool calculates recovery factor (RF = Np/N or Gp/G) for oil and gas, specifying the verb 'Calculate' and resource 'recovery factor'. It distinguishes from sibling calculation tools by focusing on a specific metric.

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 mentions it works for both oil and gas with consistent units, implying usage context, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternative tools for similar calculations.

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