run_nodal_analysis

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It specifies the models used (Vogel IPR, simplified vertical lift) but does not disclose limitations, assumptions, or side effects. Lacks information on data requirements or potential inaccuracies.

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?

Description is concise with a brief intro and organized parameter list. No redundant language, but the docstring style is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

With output schema present, description need not detail return values, but it lacks context on assumptions, interpretation of results, or typical use cases. Adequate but could provide more user guidance.

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, so description compensates by listing each parameter with units (e.g., psi, bbl/day/psi) and some defaults. However, it does not explain the significance of parameters like PI or tubing_size in the context of nodal analysis.

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 'Simplified nodal analysis: find IPR/VLP intersection for operating point.' This clearly defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_well_economics or forecast_advanced_decline.

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 usage when nodal analysis is needed but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives mentioned despite many sibling tools.

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