petropt/petro-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It doesn't disclose computational characteristics (e.g., precision, handling of edge cases), error conditions, or output format details beyond the formula. The description states what the tool calculates but not how it behaves operationally.

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 with three sentences: purpose statement, formula, and parameter explanations. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The formula could be slightly verbose but earns its place by clarifying the monthly compounding assumption.

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 (which handles return values), no annotations, and simple parameters, the description is moderately complete. It explains the calculation purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral context about execution characteristics. For a financial calculation tool, more transparency about assumptions would be beneficial.

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 explaining both parameters: 'cash_flows' as 'Monthly cash flows ($)' with the note about the first element typically being negative, and 'discount_rate' as 'Annual discount rate' with the default value. This adds crucial meaning 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 specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('Net Present Value from monthly cash flows'), including the mathematical formula. It distinguishes from siblings like calculate_irr, calculate_pv10, and calculate_well_economics by focusing exclusively on NPV calculation with monthly cash flows.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While the description mentions the first cash flow element is 'typically negative (capex)', it doesn't specify when to choose NPV over IRR, PV10, or other economic metrics available in the sibling tools list.

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