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. While it states what the tool calculates, it doesn't describe how it behaves: no information about required permissions, rate limits, whether calculations are deterministic, what happens with zero values, or how the well type classification works. The description provides basic functionality but lacks important behavioral 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 a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter section could be slightly more integrated with the main description rather than appearing as a separate 'Args:' section.

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), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, for a calculation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about how calculations work, edge cases, and when to use it versus alternatives to be truly complete.

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 compensates well by clearly explaining all three parameters with their units (oil_rate in bbl/day/BOPD, gas_rate in Mcf/day, water_rate in bbl/day/BWPD). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain parameter constraints or validation rules.

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 producing ratios') and lists the exact ratios computed (GOR, WOR, water cut) plus well type classification. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'calculate_annular_velocity' or 'calculate_eur' by focusing on production ratios rather than other engineering calculations.

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's clear this calculates production ratios, there's no mention of when this is appropriate versus other analysis tools like 'analyze_trends' or 'query_production', nor any prerequisites or limitations for its use.

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