estimate_tieback_economics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the analytical basis (CAPEX, breakeven range $25-$35/bbl, flow-assurance distance thresholds vs. FPUs), which tells the agent what the model reasons over. However it says nothing about whether this is a deterministic calculation, what assumptions/limits apply, or what the response contains — significant gaps for a model-driven estimator.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the evaluated outputs and closes with the comparison baseline. No filler, no repetition of the tool name or schema.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the outputs (CAPEX, breakeven oil price, distance thresholds), which covers what an agent should expect back. It is thin on assumptions and validity limits, but for a four-parameter computational estimator this is close to sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including defaults and units. The description adds only indirect meaning (the flow-assurance distance concept behind tieback_distance_miles) and does not mention host_type, water_depth_ft, or production_rate_bpd. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Evaluates') plus a precise resource domain ('subsea tieback capital expenditures, breakeven oil prices, flow assurance distance thresholds'). The comparison against standalone greenfield FPUs further narrows what this tool is, and it is unmistakably distinct from the sibling regulatory-classifier and protraction-lookup 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?

The description frames the tool as a comparison versus greenfield FPUs, which implies an evaluation context, but it never states when to call this versus the sibling tools or what inputs make it appropriate. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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