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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the calculation method but doesn't describe what the tool returns (though an output schema exists), error conditions, assumptions, or any behavioral traits like performance or constraints. This is inadequate for a calculation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear parameter breakdown. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (engineering calculation), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is partially complete. It explains the method and parameters but lacks context on usage, assumptions, or output interpretation. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but more guidance would be beneficial for effective tool invocation.

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 description includes an 'Args:' section that defines each parameter's meaning and units (e.g., 'Oil API gravity (degrees)', 'Reservoir temperature in F'). With schema description coverage at 0%, this adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover validation ranges or example values.

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 action ('Calculate bubble point pressure') and the method used ('using Standing's correlation (1947)'), which distinguishes it from other calculation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools that might also calculate bubble points using different methods, though no such siblings are listed.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, limitations, or context for application, leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic function stated.

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