Keyword search the NOV Grant Prideco drill string reference (e.g. 'NC50', '5 S-135', 'HT55 make-up torque', '8 drill collar', 'XT57'). Returns matching items with full specs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it returns full specs, which is beneficial but not extensive. No additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, result limits) is provided.
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 two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: first defines the action and domain, second describes the result. No extraneous words.
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?
Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's function. It could elaborate on result format or limitations, but the examples provide enough context for a simple search 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 schema has 0% description coverage for the 'query' parameter. The description compensates by providing example queries (e.g., 'NC50', '5 S-135'), adding meaning beyond the bare type string.
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 it is a keyword search over the NOV Grant Prideco drill string reference, provides example queries, and specifies that it returns matching items with full specs. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_drill_pipe_specs and list_drill_pipe.
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 via example queries and the domain (drill string reference). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives like get_drill_pipe_specs. The examples are helpful but not comprehensive.
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.