petropt/petro-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the formula and default values, but lacks details on error handling, units for output, or performance characteristics like rate limits. It doesn't contradict annotations, but could be more comprehensive for a calculation tool.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details in an 'Args:' section. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by emphasizing the tool's output or context 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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description does well by explaining the formula, parameters, and usage notes. It covers the essentials for a calculation tool, though it could benefit from more behavioral context like error cases or example outputs.

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 both parameters: density_mix_lb_ft3 as 'Mixture density in lb/ft3' and c_factor with detailed default and usage notes (e.g., 'Default 100. Use 125 for intermittent, 150-200 for corrosion-resistant alloys'). This adds significant meaning 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 erosional velocity using a specific formula (API RP 14E) and provides the equation v_e = C / sqrt(rho_mix). It distinguishes from siblings like calculate_annular_velocity by specifying the erosional velocity calculation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other velocity-related tools.

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 for erosional velocity calculations in fluid flow contexts, with guidance on C-factor values for different materials (e.g., 125 for intermittent, 150-200 for corrosion-resistant alloys). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_annular_velocity or provide exclusions.

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