petropt/petro-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it states what the tool calculates, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, numerical precision, unit requirements beyond what's implied, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a calculation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 and concise - first sentence states the purpose with formula, then clearly documents both parameters. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to explain return values. For a straightforward calculation tool with 2 parameters, the description covers the core functionality well, though it could benefit from more behavioral context given the lack of annotations.

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 clearly explaining both parameters: 'pressure_psi: Formation pressure (psi)' and 'tvd_ft: True vertical depth (ft)'. It adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, specifying what each parameter represents and their units.

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 verb 'calculate' and the resource 'formation pressure gradient as ppg equivalent', including the exact formula FPG = P / (0.052 * TVD). It distinguishes from siblings like calculate_hydrostatic_pressure and calculate_ecd by focusing specifically on formation pressure gradient calculation.

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. With many sibling calculation tools (like calculate_hydrostatic_pressure, calculate_ecd, calculate_kill_mud_weight), there's no indication of when this specific formation pressure gradient calculation is appropriate versus other pressure-related calculations.

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