rta_agarwal_gardner

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists computed outputs but does not disclose side effects, data requirements (e.g., sorted data), or whether the tool is read-only. Missing behavioral context beyond the calculation.

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 with a one-line summary, listed output variables, and an Args section. Well-structured and focused, though the variable list could be merged with the summary.

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 of RTA and presence of output schema, the description covers the main computed variables but lacks information on output schema structure, data preprocessing needs, or any assumptions. Adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 0%, requiring description to explain parameters. The Args list provides brief but clear descriptions for all 5 parameters, including units for time and pressure. However, units for rates and cumulative are omitted, and time units are ambiguous (days or months).

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 computes Agarwal-Gardner rate-normalized variables for type curve analysis. It specifies the resource and verb, differentiating it from other RTA methods by name, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rta_blasingame or rta_normalized_rate. No prerequisites or context for appropriate use.

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