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 clearly indicates this is a calculation tool (implied read-only, non-destructive), but doesn't mention error conditions, numerical precision, unit validation, or what happens with invalid inputs. The formula disclosure is helpful but behavioral context is minimal.

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 efficiently structured with the formula first, followed by clear parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the formatting with 'Args:' could be slightly more polished. It's appropriately sized for a simple calculation tool.

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?

For a straightforward calculation tool with 2 parameters and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description provides the essential formula and parameter semantics. The main gap is lack of usage guidance, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it's reasonably complete.

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: 'mud_weight_ppg: Mud weight in pounds per gallon (ppg)' and 'tvd_ft: True vertical depth in feet.' This provides essential context beyond the bare schema titles, including units and physical meaning.

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 explicitly states the specific formula (P = 0.052 * MW * TVD) and identifies the exact calculation being performed. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like calculate_formation_pressure_gradient or calculate_collapse_pressure by focusing specifically on hydrostatic pressure using mud weight and true vertical depth.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the formula is specific, there's no mention of when hydrostatic pressure calculations are needed in workflows, what prerequisites exist, or how this differs from related pressure calculations in the sibling list.

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