petropt/petro-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it lists supported unit categories, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like precision, rounding behavior, error handling for invalid units, conversion formulas used, or performance characteristics. For a unit conversion tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The unit category listing is comprehensive but could be more concise. The 'Args' section is well-structured and adds necessary detail without redundancy. Minor room for improvement in streamlining the unit list.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and supported units. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. However, more behavioral context would enhance completeness for a tool with no annotations.

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 explaining all three parameters in the 'Args' section. It provides clear examples for 'from_unit' and 'to_unit' parameters (e.g., 'bbl', 'psi', 'API', 'm3', 'kPa', 'SG') and specifies that 'value' must be numeric. This adds substantial 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 tool's purpose: 'Convert between oilfield and SI units' with a specific verb ('convert') and resource ('units'). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which are primarily calculation and analysis tools rather than unit converters.

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 by listing supported unit categories, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with other conversion methods. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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