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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the equation's authors and comparative advantages, which adds useful context, but doesn't describe output format, error conditions, computational characteristics, or validation rules. For a calculation tool with 8 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 purpose statement, context/guidance, and detailed parameter documentation. While the parameter section is necessarily lengthy for 8 parameters, the initial sentences are front-loaded with essential information. Every sentence adds value, though the formatting could be slightly more concise.

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's complexity (8 parameters, specialized petrophysical calculation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides strong purpose clarity, excellent usage guidelines, and comprehensive parameter semantics. The main gap is in behavioral transparency regarding computational details and error handling, but overall it's quite complete for its context.

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 for 8 parameters, the description provides comprehensive parameter documentation in the Args section, including units (ohm-m, fraction v/v), ranges (0-1), defaults (a=1.0, m=2.0, n=2.0), and clear definitions for each parameter. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action ('Calculate water saturation') and resource ('using Indonesian equation'), with explicit differentiation from sibling tools ('Better than Archie/Simandoux for very shaly sands'). It precisely identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from related alternatives like calculate_archie_sw and calculate_simandoux_sw.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('high-Vshale formations', 'very shaly sands') and when to consider alternatives ('Better than Archie/Simandoux for very shaly sands'), directly addressing the context of sibling tools. This gives clear decision criteria for tool selection.

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