Full NOV Grant Prideco performance specs for one drill string item by id: pipe-body new/premium torsional & tensile yield, internal pressure, collapse; tool-joint OD/ID, make-up torque max/min, drift, torsional yield. Use list_drill_pipe for ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Item id, e.g. dp-5-19.50-s135-nc50 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable context by enumerating the exact specifications returned (pipe-body and tool-joint properties), which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.
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?
Single sentence that efficiently lists the key specs and provides a cross-reference. No wasted words; all information earns its place.
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?
No output schema, but the description fully lists the return fields (pipe-body and tool-joint specs), making the tool's output clear. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand what data it will receive.
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 100% coverage with a description for id and an example. The description reinforces the parameter's purpose and cross-references list_drill_pipe, adding value beyond the 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 the tool retrieves performance specs for a single drill string item by ID, listing specific attributes (torsional yield, pressure, etc.). It also distinguishes from list_drill_pipe by indicating the latter provides IDs. The verb and resource are explicit.
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 advises using list_drill_pipe to obtain IDs, implying this tool is for looking up specs for known IDs. It does not explicitly exclude other sibling tools, but the guidance is clear and helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct, but there is potential confusion between get_product_specs (product lines) and get_drill_pipe_specs (drill pipe items), as well as between list_drill_pipe and search_drill_pipe. However, descriptions clarify these differences.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_, list_, search_, submit_), making it predictable for agents.
12 tools cover two main domains (FEODE company and drill string reference) without excess or deficiency, providing a well-scoped set.
The tool surface covers key operations for both domains: company info, product/service lifecycle, and drill string reference. Minor gaps like lack of company news or additional equipment categories, but core workflows are supported.