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 describes a calculation tool but doesn't specify if it's read-only, whether it has side effects, error handling, or performance characteristics. The description doesn't contradict annotations (since none exist), but it lacks essential behavioral context for a tool with potential safety implications in drilling operations.

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?

Perfectly structured and concise. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides the exact formula, and the Args section clearly documents parameters. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, 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's moderate complexity (calculation with 3 parameters), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and what parameters mean, though it could benefit from more behavioral context. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description appropriately focuses on purpose and inputs.

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 description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, it fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning: 'fracture gradient at shoe (ppg)', 'current mud weight (ppg)', and 'casing shoe TVD (ft)'. This adds crucial domain context that the bare schema titles don't convey.

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 with a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('Maximum Allowable Annular Surface Pressure'), including the exact formula (MAASP = (FG - MW) * 0.052 * shoe TVD). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on this specific pressure calculation, unlike other tools for economics, porosity, or flow analysis.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the formula implies it's for wellbore pressure management, there's no mention of specific scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to similar tools like calculate_hydrostatic_pressure or calculate_collapse_pressure.

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