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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the calculation formula but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only calculation or has side effects, what permissions might be needed, how errors are handled, or what the output format looks like. The description provides the core algorithm but lacks operational context.

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 purpose first, formula second, and parameter explanation third. Every sentence adds value, though the formula could potentially be integrated more smoothly. The two-sentence format with a clear 'Args:' section is well-organized and front-loaded.

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 mathematical nature and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core calculation adequately. However, for a financial calculation tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention more about the business context, typical inputs, or interpretation of results. The description is complete enough for the basic calculation but lacks broader contextual guidance.

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 must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It successfully explains the meaning of the single parameter ('monthly_net_revenue: Monthly net revenue ($) after royalties and opex'), providing crucial context about what the numbers represent and their units. However, it doesn't clarify that this is an array parameter or explain the time dimension mapping.

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 PV10') and defines what PV10 represents ('SEC standard present value at 10% annual discount'), including the exact mathematical formula. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on this specific financial metric rather than engineering calculations like 'calculate_npv' or 'calculate_irr'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions the SEC standard context, it doesn't explain when PV10 is preferred over other economic metrics like NPV or IRR, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases in oil and gas economics.

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