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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (linear fitting for OGIP estimation) and mentions an optional parameter for recoverable gas. However, it doesn't disclose computational characteristics, error handling, or output format details that would help an agent understand behavioral traits.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, context about its importance, and a dedicated 'Args:' section. It's appropriately sized for a specialized engineering tool, though the '#1 reservoir engineering spreadsheet calculation' claim could be considered slightly promotional rather than purely functional.

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 complexity (reservoir engineering analysis), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides solid context about purpose and parameters. It doesn't need to explain return values due to the output schema, but could benefit from more behavioral details about the fitting process or limitations.

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 three parameters: 'pressures' (reservoir pressures or P/Z values in psi), 'cumulative_gas' (cumulative gas production in Bcf), and 'abandonment_pressure' (optional for recoverable gas estimate). It provides units, purpose, and optionality 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: 'Fits a linear P/Z vs Gp trend to estimate Original Gas In Place (OGIP).' It specifies the exact calculation (gas material balance analysis) and distinguishes it from siblings like 'volumetric_ogip' by focusing on production data analysis rather than volumetric methods.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for reservoir engineering analysis using production data. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, but the specialized nature and sibling tools like 'volumetric_ogip' imply it's for production-based OGIP estimation.

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