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 mentions the tool calculates a critical rate and includes an optional parameter for 'status check', but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what the output represents, whether it's a prediction or diagnostic, error conditions, or computational characteristics. It provides basic purpose 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: purpose statement first, usage guidelines second, then parameter details in a clean Args section. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy. The two-sentence purpose/guidelines section is front-loaded and efficient.

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 (mentioned in context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers purpose, guidelines, and parameter semantics well. However, as a calculation tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context about what the calculation means or how to interpret results, though the output schema may address this.

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 explaining all 5 parameters in the Args section. Each parameter gets clear units and meaning: 'wellhead_pressure_psi: Wellhead flowing pressure in psi', 'gas_sg: Gas specific gravity (air = 1.0)', etc. The optional parameter purpose is also explained: 'for status check (optional)'. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 tool calculates 'Coleman et al. (1991) critical rate for liquid loading (20% below Turner)', specifying the exact calculation (critical rate), the methodology (Coleman 1991), and its relationship to Turner's method. It distinguishes from sibling 'calculate_turner_critical' by noting it's 20% below Turner, providing clear differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Recommended for low-pressure gas wells (< ~500 psi wellhead pressure).' This provides clear context for application and implicitly suggests alternatives (like Turner method) for higher-pressure scenarios, giving excellent guidance.

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