volumetric_ooip

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

No annotations provided; description partially compensates by revealing the calculation formula and specifying that it computes OOIP. However, it does not disclose error handling, validation, or assumptions (e.g., unit consistency, range checks).

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 header and formula. The Args list is somewhat redundant given the schema, but it adds context. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Despite an output schema existing (not shown), the description does not explain the return value (expected OOIP in STB). It covers the formula and parameters but omits result format and potential edge cases.

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%, but the description explicitly explains each parameter's meaning, units, and constraints (e.g., porosity as fraction 0-1, Sw as fraction, Bo in bbl/STB). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Calculate volumetric Original Oil In Place (OOIP)' with a specific verb and resource. It includes the formula, distinguishing it from sibling tools like volumetric_ogip (gas) and other calculation 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. No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The description is purely functional.

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