petropt/petro-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes the mathematical calculation and default values, which helps understand the tool's behavior. However, it lacks information about error handling, output format, or computational characteristics that would be useful for an agent.

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 efficiently structured with the purpose statement first, followed by the formula, then a well-organized parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The formatting with bullet-like 'Args:' section enhances readability.

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 mathematical nature of the tool, 6 parameters with no schema descriptions, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is quite complete. It covers the equation, all parameters with semantics, and application context. Minor gaps include lack of error cases or performance characteristics.

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, but the description comprehensively documents all 6 parameters with clear definitions, units, ranges (for phi), and default values. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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 explicitly states the tool calculates water saturation using the Archie equation for clean sands, providing the specific formula. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_simandoux_sw or calculate_indonesian_sw, which use different equations for similar purposes.

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 context by specifying 'clean sands' and listing required parameters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_simandoux_sw or calculate_indonesian_sw. It provides basic parameter requirements but no comparative guidance.

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