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. It discloses that this is a calculation tool (implied read-only, non-destructive) and specifies method defaults and applicability. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, computational limits, or output format details, leaving behavioral gaps for an agent.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter explanations are necessary given 0% schema coverage. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but every sentence adds value, and there's no redundant information.

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 (8 parameters, specialized domain) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and method guidance. The main gap is lack of explicit behavioral traits (e.g., error handling), but with output schema existing, this is less critical.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It successfully adds meaning for all 8 parameters: it explains units (F, psi), defines gas_sg relative to air, lists method options with defaults, specifies pseudocritical methods with use cases, and clarifies that H2S/CO2/N2 fractions are for Piper method with ranges (0-1). This goes well 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's purpose: 'Calculate gas Z-factor with choice of correlation and pseudocritical method.' It specifies the exact calculation (Z-factor) and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on gas properties rather than other petroleum engineering calculations like decline analysis, pressure drops, or economics.

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 clear context for when to use specific methods (e.g., 'piper' is 'better for gas condensates and sour gases'), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives among siblings. It offers method selection guidance but lacks broader tool-selection context.

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