rta_flowing_material_balance

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

No annotations provided; description only mentions a plot and regression line. No disclosure of assumptions, data requirements, limitations, error conditions, or behavioral traits.

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 very short and to the point: purpose, method overview, and parameter list. No unnecessary words.

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?

The explanation of the plot and x-intercept is adequate for a technical audience, but it does not compare with sibling RTA tools or provide guidance on input assumptions. Lacks context for when to use this 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?

Schema has 0% description coverage. The description lists parameters with units (e.g., bbl/d, psi), adding value beyond schema titles, but does not explain the meaning or role of each parameter in the context of the method.

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 estimates OOIP/OGIP from production data using flowing material balance, with a specific method (plot and x-intercept). This distinguishes it from sibling RTA 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 versus other RTA methods (e.g., Blasingame, Agarwal-Gardner). The description explains the method but does not provide usage context or alternatives.

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