petropt/petro-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool calculates but doesn't mention whether this is a pure computation (no side effects), what units the result is in, error handling for invalid inputs (e.g., negative diameters), or performance characteristics. The description is functionally correct but lacks operational context.

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 perfectly structured and concise. The first sentence states the purpose and formula, followed by a clean 'Args:' section that documents each parameter without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence earns its place, and information is front-loaded effectively.

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 tool has an output schema (though not shown here), the description doesn't need to explain return values. For a pure calculation tool with 3 parameters, the description covers the essential computation and parameter semantics well. The main gap is lack of usage context/guidelines, but for a straightforward mathematical function, this is reasonably complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by clearly documenting all three parameters with their meanings and units. Each parameter (flow_rate_gpm, hole_diameter_in, pipe_od_in) gets explicit explanation of what it represents and its measurement units, which is essential for correct tool invocation.

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 specific calculation being performed ('Calculate annular velocity') and provides the exact formula (AV = 24.51 * Q / (Dh^2 - Dp^2)). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'calculate_ecd' or 'calculate_hydrostatic_pressure' which perform different petroleum engineering calculations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the formula itself implies it's for annular velocity calculations in drilling/petroleum contexts, there's no explicit mention of use cases, prerequisites, or comparison to similar tools like 'calculate_erosional_vel' which might relate to velocity thresholds.

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