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. It discloses the calculation method ('bisection') and mentions default values for some parameters, but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like error conditions, numerical precision, performance characteristics, or what happens with invalid inputs. It provides basic operational context but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, explains the method, then lists parameters with helpful details. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter documentation could be slightly more concise. The information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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's complexity (financial calculation with multiple parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the calculation purpose, method, and all parameters thoroughly. The main gap is lack of usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but otherwise it's quite complete for this type of calculation 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does so effectively. It provides clear semantic explanations for all 6 parameters, including units (bbl, $), ranges (0-1 for royalty_pct), and relationships (months defaulting to length of production array). The description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more context about parameter interactions.

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 purpose: 'Calculate breakeven oil price -- minimum price for NPV = 0.' It uses a precise verb ('calculate') with the specific resource ('breakeven oil price') and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on NPV breakeven analysis rather than other economic or 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 it mentions the calculation method ('Uses bisection'), it doesn't indicate when this tool is appropriate compared to other economic calculation tools like 'calculate_npv', 'calculate_irr', or 'calculate_well_economics' in the sibling list.

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