rta_normalized_rate

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

The description reveals the mathematical operation but does not disclose boundary conditions (e.g., Pi > Pwf, arrays must match in length) or error handling. With no annotations, more detail on behavioral traits would be beneficial.

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, starting with the formula and purpose, then listing args with units. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded.

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 description covers the essential points: formula, purpose, and parameters. Since an output schema exists, return value details are handled. It could explicitly state the output is an array of normalized rates, but overall it is sufficient for a 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 adds units and context for each parameter (bbl/d, psi), compensating for the 0% schema coverage. However, it does not specify that rate and flowing_pressure arrays must be the same length or that initial_pressure is a scalar applied uniformly.

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 the formula q/(Pi-Pwf) and explains that it normalizes rate to remove pressure effects for type curve analysis and RTA. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling RTA methods like rta_blasingame or rta_agarwal_gardner.

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 implies use for type curve analysis and RTA but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other RTA-specific transformations. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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