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. It discloses the calculation method (minimum curvature) and output format (computed values at each station), which is good behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention error handling, performance characteristics, or whether this is a read-only/compute operation versus a destructive one. The description adds meaningful context but could be more comprehensive.

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 perfectly structured: purpose statement first, then output explanation, then parameter details in a clean Args section. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words. The information is front-loaded and efficiently organized.

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 complexity (well trajectory calculation), no annotations, and an output schema exists (so return values don't need explanation), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, method, outputs, and all parameters thoroughly. The only minor gap is lack of explicit usage guidance versus sibling tools, but otherwise it provides excellent context for this computational tool.

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 all 4 parameters: md (measured depths with unit clarification), inclination (degrees from vertical with range), azimuth (degrees from north with range), and unit (depth unit with default and options). Each parameter's meaning, format, and constraints are clearly documented beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 well trajectory') and resource ('using minimum curvature method'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the exact calculation method and output values (North, East, TVD, dogleg severity). It's not a tautology of the name and provides concrete details about what the tool does.

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 implies usage context through the parameter explanations (survey station data) and mentions the default unit, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate_dogleg_severity' or 'calculate_vertical_section' from the sibling list. No explicit when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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