rta_flowing_material_balance

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

The description explains the plotted relationship and interpretation (x-intercept gives hydrocarbon volume), but does not disclose assumptions, data quality needs, or limitations such as boundary domination or multiphase flow. Without annotations, the description carries the burden but falls short of full transparency.

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: three sentences plus argument list, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence provides key information. No waste.

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 complexity and existence of an output schema, the description lacks completeness on output format, data assumptions, and typical use cases. It provides the core technical detail but not enough for an agent to confidently invoke without additional context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description compensates well by listing each parameter with units and a brief definition. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though the descriptions are minimal and do not cover units consistency or phase specificity.

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. However, it does not differentiate this method from several similar sibling RTA tools like rta_agarwal_gardner or rta_blasingame, which may confuse an agent on which to select.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternative RTA methods or other reservoir engineering calculations. The description only mentions what the tool does, leaving the agent without 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.