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 describes the mathematical operation and conversion factor (6 Mcf/BOE), which helps understand the tool's behavior. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like error handling, numerical precision, units validation, or what happens with negative inputs.

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 gives the formula with key conversion factor, and the Args section cleanly documents all parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 mathematical nature of the tool, 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the calculation logic, documents all parameters with units, and indicates defaults. The main gap is lack of behavioral context (error handling, validation), but the output schema likely covers return values.

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 providing clear parameter documentation in the Args section. Each parameter is explained with units and meaning (e.g., 'Oil price ($/bbl)', 'Royalty fraction (0-1)'), and defaults are indicated. This adds significant value 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 calculation: 'Calculate operating netback per BOE' and provides the exact formula 'Revenue - royalties - opex - transport per BOE. Gas at 6 Mcf/BOE.' This distinguishes it from all sibling tools which focus on different petroleum engineering calculations like economics, pressure, porosity, or decline 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 purpose is clear, there's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison with sibling tools like 'calculate_well_economics' or 'calculate_breakeven_price' that might overlap in economic analysis.

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